This essay will be made up of opinions, so there will be something to disagree with for everyone.

Let's start with the most obvious and least controversial thing - logistically everything is different this time around.



“Short of Joe Biden entering the race, Sanders on paper starts off with more advantages than anybody else. He’s got the largest list; he’s got the most intense following that has stayed with him since 2016; he has a proven ability to fundraise from his small-dollar base,” Brian Fallon, a Democratic strategist and former spokesman for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign, told the magazine. “He’s in the exact opposite position that he started off the 2016 campaign in.”

In 2015-2016 Bernie had to build a nationwide infrastructure without big-money donors, with a media blackout, and against a hostile party establishment. It was a Herculean task, and it took too much time to overcome.

None of those things are true today, except for the hostile party establishment. The media is also hostile, but there is no blackout this time.

Now some may say that he had the element of surprise last time, but I don't believe that means anything because his detractors are still using the same smears, despite having four years to come up with something original.

What is interesting is to see the Democratic party McResistance and Donald Trump using the exact same attacks on Bernie.





That's even more true when it comes to the "S" word.





But opponents of Sanders hope they can get voters to think twice about “feeling the Bern” if they have doubts about his ability to defeat Trump. And they see the socialist argument as a good one. “I think socialist is a word that someone who wants to beat Trump should consider carefully before embracing," said one senior adviser to a rival campaign.

...

“Democrats in their primaries will likely focus on who can reclaim much of the Obama coalition and be able to go toe-to-toe against Trump rather than be dragged into a long policy debate on socialist versus capitalist agendas,” Smikle added. “That’s a no-win scenario for us.”

If you don't think about it very hard, this sort of makes sense.

Republicans want this fight, so why give it to them. Right?

Except that this fight is inevitable. It can't be avoided. Trump has already announced he's going to call the Democratic candidate a socialist.



It does not matter what Democrats want to do, from attempting to protect people from being arbitrarily fired to preventing banks from ripping off their customers to slowing the extreme growth in inequality. For Republicans, it is always and everywhere socialism. Does the word socialism even mean anything? For Republicans, it now evidently means “everything Democrats want.”

Even if the Dems nominate Harris or Biden, he/she will be a "socialist".

So trying to run away from a fight that'll happen anyway just makes you look weak.

And that's been the case for the Democrats for more than 40 years, looking weak while running away from a word.



The health care plan introduced by Democratic President Bill Clinton was akin to “centralized bureaucratic socialism,” according to then-congressman Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, would similarly characterize the bipartisan S-CHIP program, which expanded health coverage for children, as “a step towards socialism.”

...Obama was “a hardcore socialist,” according to billionaire David Koch. His stimulus plan was “one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment,” then-Republican House leader John Boehner said. The U.S. will “have effectively ceased to be a free-enterprise society” after the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said during his 2012 presidential campaign.

...Then-Reps. Allen West (R-Fla.) and Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) both intimated that they had lists of Democrats in Congress who were secret socialists or “members of the Communist Party.”

Even Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, was labeled as “dangerously close” to socialism by former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, during the 2016 election.

Candidate after candidate, decade after decade, Democrats ran away from the "S" word in terror...until Bernie came along.

You can't smear someone with a word if that person has already embraced that word.

That's why Bernie has a unique advantage against Trump.

“We’ve so overused the word ‘socialism’ that it no longer has the negative connotation it had 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.”

- Republican consultant Saul Anuzis

Bernie also has one other advantage that he didn't have in 2016 - foreign policy chops.



Foreign policy played little role in the 2016 Democratic primary, but 2020 might be different. Most of the field has concentrated so far on domestic questions, with few staking out much in the way of a signature perspective — with one exception: Bernie Sanders. As Peter Beinart writes at The Atlantic, Sanders has elucidated a platform that is strongly critical of America's imperial blundering, arguing instead for a return of neighborly internationalism and re-engagement with the United Nations.

Except for Gabbard, no candidate is more incline to end our state of permanent wars. It's an immensely popular stand with voters across the political spectrum.

Now I'm going to offer some constructive criticism of his campaign.

Please note the differences between Bernie's 2020 Presidential campaign web site, where he stands on the issues, versus his Senatorial campaign web site for the issues.

Ignore for the moment that the Presidential campaign web site is far superior.

The problem here is substance.

Specifically, too much substance.

Because he is running as a socialist (actually Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, but a social democrat), he remains vulnerable to the "free stuff" criticism.

The more stuff on his agenda, the more he looks like "Socialist Santa Claus".

Bernie needs to simplify his campaign agenda. He needs to make it smaller and more focused on empowering working people, like his Senatorial web site does.

Consider Trump's campaign.

What did he run on?

"Build. The. Wall."

"Drain. The. Swamp."

"Lock. Her. Up."

Simple. Easy to understand. And complete bullsh*t.

Hillary's web site was huge, complex, and complete bullsh*t.

The important take-away is that simplicity sells in politics.

To better explain, I want to focus on two issues: the Green New Deal and Medicare For All.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard declined to endorse the "Green New Deal" despite her being an environmentalist. Her reasoning for the decision bears consideration.



“I have some concerns with the Green New Deal, and about some of the vagueness of the language in there, so have not co-sponsored the legislation,” the Hawaii congresswoman said when asked about the progressive plan to rapidly shift away from fossil fuels to fight climate change.

Vagueness is a huge liability in politics because it allows your opponent to define the issue ($93 Trillion anyone?). Now you can combat that by removing the vagueness and defining it...if you own the issue.

Bernie does not own the issue. AOC does.

Simply put, Gabbard is right and Bernie is wrong, strategy-wise.

Bernie needs to call his environmental plan something entirely different and de-emphasize it.

MFA is the opposite situation.

It's a known, defined issue that doesn't scare anyone, and it's an opportunity.

Consider the bullsh*t argument against it, i.e. "how are you going to pay for it?"

Well, Medicare taxes are payroll taxes and does not tax income above $132,900.

Bernie has proposed lifting the cap.



The Social Security system is currently fully funded until 2037. Lifting the payroll tax cap would virtually eliminate funding shortfalls the program would experience over the next 75 years.

This is a very good idea, but you can also mess with Republicans while you are at it by calling it a "flat tax".

Once you lift the cap you change payroll taxes from "regressive" to "flat", and according to Republican dogma flat taxes are a good thing.

You then put Republicans into a position of having to tell their heavily indoctrinated base why a flat tax, to help pay for MFA, is NOT a good thing. Heads will explode.