Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, January 20, 2019

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has attracted unexpected support from millions of Americans, but one endorsement may be more surprising than any other. The Republican Party (yes, that one) seems to be “feeling the Bern,” if its press releases and publicly available “research” are any indication of the party leadership’s preferences.

While not openly admitting their purpose, party strategists apparently hope a Sanders ticket will galvanize their own voters to prevent his election and ensure Republican victory. With Hillary Clinton out of the race, a democratic socialist could also alienate conservative Democrats, who might either turn to the Republicans or simply stay home on Election Day.

The Republican National Committee has repeatedly, and quite surprisingly, propped up Bernie Sanders against both Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. In fact, recent noises from the RNC sound almost like dyed-in-the-wool-ultraliberal Democrats. “With only six sanctioned debates, the DNC is providing new opportunities for voters to get to know the candidates and see where they stand on the issues,” said a post by Team GOP in the run up to the second Democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa.

Michael Short, the Rapid Response Director for the RNC, published an aggregated list claiming that Sanders performed better among focus groups and online polls than Hillary Clinton, who still remains the leading Democratic aspirant. “Hillary Clinton may be the stronger debater on stage — she was in 2008 too — but like Barack Obama in 2007 and 2008 it was Bernie Sanders that won the hearts and interest of Democrat voters,” wrote Short. Quite a glowing review for the candidate most likely to debate “the merits of socialism over capitalism.”

To the naive voters, Republican support for Sanders might seem contradictory. After all, most Republicans dislike any notion of wealth redistribution, public healthcare, and other socially progressive policies designed to help poorer voters, preferring “trickle-down economics” and tax cuts for the super-rich. So if Republican spokespersons are backing a democratic socialist against the “practical progressive” candidate, it’s because they hope moderate and conservative Democrats will so disagree with his platform that they will deprive their own party of a crucial voting bloc. Together self-identified moderates and conservatives still constitute just over half of all Democrats, although Democrats who identify with the liberal wing have grown to become the single largest voting bloc in the party.

The GOP clearly hopes to portray Democrats as led by a bunch of socialists and even communists (as Donald Trump puts it) who chose Sanders. Electing a socialist will mean “unending layovers of senseless government bureaucracy.” Or maybe it will mean “rich and decadent government spending.” (Some media intern probably got a pat on the back for that timely “The 5 flavors of Bernie Sanders” listicle.) Either way, Sanders’ election will result in bigger government, a cause the Republicans have vowed to fight in perpetuity.

Currently, however, there are reputable polls that show Sanders beating every leading Republican candidate in a general election. Trump loses. Cruz loses. Carson isn’t even competitive among Republican candidates, a decline that began soon after disclosing he believed the Pyramids were used for agriculture in the Egyptian desert. Sanders, on the other hand, has increased his support since launching his campaign in April.

Perhaps those clever Republican strategists should be careful what they wish for.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 413

45 responses to “Does The Republican Party Want Bernie Sanders To Win Democratic Nomination?”

  1. Daniel Jones says:

    It’s not even thinking they have a better shot of winning against Bernie.

    They just want Hilary to lose.

    • 11thStPopulist says:

      Of course the GOP wants Hillary to lose because they cannot fight against her. Their moderate pundits and politicians, those who the GOP is leaving behind, will most likely back her instead of a Trump/Palin ticket. Examples include David Brooks, Jeb Bush, and, I betcha, even John McCain! Going to be interesting.

  2. Mr Corrections says:

    “While not openly admitting so” isn’t entirely accurate.

    Republican candidate John Kasich indicated in a debate last week that he’d love to face Sanders. “We’re going to win every state,” he said, “if Bernie Sanders is the nominee.

  3. @HawaiianTater says:

    There has never been a more accurate time to use the phrase: be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

    If they think that the majority of Americans don’t support Bernie’s positions, they are even more delusional than I thought they were. That’s a pretty impressive feat for a group of people who are already living in fantasy land. They already can’t beat Hillary. Bernie would crush them by historic levels. His biggest enemy is the establishment DNC who is doing their best to rig it for their puppet Hillary. If Bernie can defeat them, you might as well hold the inauguration over the summer because the Republicans have no chance at beating him.

    Kasich is missing his calling as a comedian. That line about him winning all 50 states if he runs against Bernie is one of the funniest things I have heard in my entire life.

    • yabbed says:

      Most of the berniebots are GOP operatives and NRA and AIPAC operatives who will all depart the scene once he secured the nomination because they all represent serious conservatives and will vote Republican. The old hippie freaks, the scant few Socialists, and the moochers on others’ earnings aren’t sufficient to win a general election.

      • @HawaiianTater says:

        The number of people who have showed up at his rallies is in the hundreds of thousands and the amount of people who have donated to him is in the millions. And you think allllllllllll of those people are GOP/NRA/AIPAC operatives? You might want to put down the crack pipe there buddy.

      • 788eddie says:

        It is interesting to note, yabbed, that those who are under 40 don’t even remember a “country” called USSR, and that old bugaboo “socialism” probably doesn’t mean anything to them. BTW, isn’t that the major portion of Bernie supporters?

        There’s a lot of voters in that there demographic.

    • johncp says:

      Your line that “If they think the majority of Americans don’s support Bernie’s positions,…” is pure fantasy land. Combine Hillary’s support, together with Trump’s support, then read that line once more.

  4. FT66 says:

    It is quite simple and very easy math, without the coalition we had in 2008 and 2012, there is no way Sanders can win the General Election. Sanders can’t manage to get such a coalition even if he can work day and night from today until Nov.

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      FT66…Actually, that is quite true. Sanders doesn’t have the votes needed by the electoral college. It’s also doubtful he’ll carry SC where Hillary has been the favorite in the 2008 election.

      • Böcker says:

        Hillary and Co are trying their best to dirty up Sen Sanders. They should stop now or the dems will lose the the WH. She had her chance in 08 and lost.

        • FT66 says:

          Oh come on. Who told you that we Dems rotate chances?

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          Hillary doesn’t have to try. She is an accomplished seasoned politician quite up to Sanders blusters and idealism. I should think you’d be more worried about O’Malley the dark horse…he is southern, white and quite pragmatic.

          • Böcker says:

            Hillary is running scared, why else is she sending everyone out to dirty up Sen Sanders who BTW has been in elected office way longer then she has been.

      • FT66 says:

        Thanks Eleanore. I can assure you it is only in New Hampshire where Sanders may be will emerge as winner. No where else. Can that take him and emerge as a nominee? I doubt it.

  5. greenlantern1 says:

    Did Nixon want Muskie to get the nomination?
    DIRTY POLITICS as usual??

  6. yabbed says:

    Of course the GOP wants to run against Sanders. They know he would be just another McGovern and doom the Democratic Party all the way down the line. Democratic Party leadership knows that, too, which is why he doesn’t not have Party support.

  7. HowardBrazee says:

    What politicians say they want and what they really want don’t always agree. A Sanders victory would tell them that the people want the country to go in a different direction. That scares those in power.

    • johncp says:

      “Go,” in a different direction? Are you joking? Sanders will have virtually no power in the extremely unlikely event that he would gain the presidency. The idea that a republican congress would not give him even less than they have given Obama is a certainty. I don’t know why Sanders wants to be president, but I suspect it’s just a consequence of a life lived in anonymity and obscurity. He sees a chance to get something to compensate him for this void. If people think this is reason enough to give him the presidency, go ahead. But don’t think he can do 10% of what he promises. I secretly believe the man is bonkers.

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        Actually, that’s not entirely true. The Republican scheme would be to sidle up to Sanders, giving him several of tthe things he wants, while holding him hostage for reinstating the Iran sanctions. Americans need to face the reality that Big Oil is taking a huge hit and they are fighting back with every billion they can steal from taxpayers to keep oil the fossil fuel du jour. They know that Sanders is an idealist. How easy it is to pull the wool over an idealist’s eyes? As easy as giving in to a few very insignificant Sanders promises and then poking more holes in the legislation they pass than Swiss cheese. Isn’t that what they did in 2009 to Obama? He tried to pass banking reforms and ACA and in order to get the required number of votes to pass these, the GOP refused to pass the extension for unemplyment they caused of 8 million people.

      • baxtus says:

        With the GOP nominating Trump, there will be no Republican Congress in 2017

  8. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    As a former Republican for over 3 decades? Yes. The Republican would love nothing better than to pit Cruz or Trump against Sanders. Why? IN a word? OIL or to be more specific…to reinstate the ban on Iranian oil. Think about it. Why else would they want Sanders? They can get him to cozy up to the bully Netanyahu who right now is raging over the removal of sanctions on Iranian oil. Already the US Big Oil boys got the bad news from Wall Street…Oil is down to $30 a barrel and is now at a 12 year low. Bad news for the Big Oil Boys. But, if Sanders should become president, his first act will be to reinstate the sanctions effectively denying Iran the right to sell their voluminous oil on world markets. Up goes US oil prices and Cruz will beat a hasty retreat to Canada to broker the Keystone oil Pipeline for the GOP…just not for the rest of the country.

    • 788eddie says:

      Interesting hypothesis, Eleanor. Not sure I agree with you.

      I am still a registered Republican, but this time, I find not one of the GOP candidates worth a hoot. I just haven’t yet decided who I’m going to give my vote to; Hillary or Bernie?

      I do know, though, that the Dems are the ones supporting policies that are healthy for both me and my family.

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        Actually, as you probably saw in the last Dem debate, there is another candidate O’Malley from MD who is running against Hillary and Sanders. Take the time to study his platform. It might be something you might like.

        The thing is that elections today are all about who can deliver the goods best.

        If you stand back and look objectively at all three Dem candidates, in the end, it comes down to who you believe can deal with the Tea Party Republicans and their back room presidents, Charles and David Koch. We’ve had 7 years of obstruction to thwart any attempts at change or advancements, all by refusing to use our tax dollars for what the Constitution intended…the needs of the people, not the needs of Big Business. But, when you consider that all of the GOP candidates are in it for their Pay to Play cronies. you see why a vote for any of the GOP would result in more, moassive Pay to Play. Billionaires buying the presidency is not democracy no matter which party you belong to.

        • 788eddie says:

          Excellent response to my post, Eleanor. Your points are clear, concise and well worded.

          Yes, I’m aware of Governor O’Malley; I’m sorry to say he isn’t doing better than he is. I haven’t missed watching any of the debates; the Dems, or the GOP “Circus.”

          I am a moderate Republican, and what I hope to get out of all this (after the total collapse of the GOP as we know it) is to get the party back in the hands of the moderates. In the process, the Tea Party Taliban members need to be voted out of office.

          I’m hoping the Democratic candidate has long coat tails.

          • Jmz Nesky says:

            You’re absolutely correct eddie.. It isn’t the Republican party et al, it’s whose in control of the party and none of them should even be considered Republicans.. I’m an Independent Democrat who had witnessed several past conservative policies that were useful for this nation and the signs are quite clear to me just how much it’s become aggressively corrupt. This isn’t something new by far.. Although I had no love for Nixon it was Saint Raygun who started the downfall of the GOP by stifling moderates and putting those who honored the party behind locked doors (or quite rooms if you prefer) which have been in effect on and off but not as blatant as in the past twelve years (Dubya’s second term).. ALL of them should be voted out and replaced with caring representatives who honor their word (oath of office) it’s the only way sanity will return within the ranks.

  9. johncp says:

    First, I want to set straight a lie which will, nevertheless, be repeated over and over. Obama did not win in 2008. His win was a “technical” win. He lost the “popular vote,” and won only because he had people in his campaign that knew how to manipulate the super-delegates. Obama had once been heard saying that he thought that people that won by any other means than the popular vote, were hypocrites.

    • Böcker says:

      Bullshit, he won the popular vote as well. Gee watch too much Fox?? Why yes you do.

      • Jmz Nesky says:

        It’s not as much faux as it is these types wanna parrot their lying leaders.. Their aim is the same keep telling thethe problem being they can’t come close to emulating them without backlash from real fact checkers.

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      John …wrong…Actually, it’s the other way round…He won the popular vote by a margin of 62% of the voting population. That’s not a technical win. Bush winning based on a Supreme Court decision in 2000 was a “technical win.” Bush didn’t have the popular vote. Gore did. So they jimmied the election to come down to JEB’s state so they could finagle with the hanging chads. Sorry but Obama is the president on both the electoral college and the popular vote count. That’s how the U.S. Constitution demands it.

    • Bob Eddy says:

      First let me set you straight. He won the delegates, he won the popular vote. He won largely because the Clinton campaign didn’t seem to understand that this was a proportional vote and treated it as a presidential election, concentrating on large States with a large number if delegates as one would a presidential election. That is fact. I think her biggest mistake, however, was saying she thought John McCain was more qualified than Obama. That’s when she lost my support and I think many Democrats.

    • baxtus says:

      Actually Obama did win the popular vote in 2008

  10. Bob Eddy says:

    Kinda reminds me of eight years ago when the right wing brain trust wanted the Black guy with the Muslim name to win because no one wold vote for someone like that. That worked out so well for them, didn’t it?

  11. baxtus says:

    If it’s Bernie Vs Trump, you will see the House and Senate both flip to Dem

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.