The Squad lines up for Bernie

Yet there was New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rallying with Sanders in Queens. The millennial “it girl” of modern progressivism was seemingly propping up the septuagenarian socialist senator just as Warren appeared to eclipse him. “This is not just about running for president,” she said in a video announcing her support. “This is about creating a mass movement.”

Sanders followed up the joint appearance with a 30-second digital ad touting Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement, part of a six-figure advertising drop in Iowa, where Biden clings to a 0.3-point lead in the RealClearPolitics polling average over Warren in second place.

“Take a look around you and find someone you don’t know — maybe somebody who doesn’t look kind of like you. Are you willing to fight for that person as much as you’re willing to fight for yourself?” Sanders asked the big, enthusiastic crowd in a part of his speech highlighted in the ad. “If you and millions of others are prepared to do that, not only will we win this election, but together we will transform this country.”

The phrase “I’m willing to fight for someone I don’t know” went viral and the image of Sanders joining hands with Ocasio-Cortez was a much-needed shot in the arm to his flagging campaign. Ocasio-Cortez was joined in her endorsement by Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar. “Proud to endorse @SenSanders for President, glad that @AOC and @RashidaTlaib are on board too,” she tweeted. “It’s time.”

The news about Tlaib, a fellow freshman Democrat from Michigan, appeared to be premature, though she is slated at press time to appear with Sanders at a Detroit rally where she is expected to add her formal endorsement. The fourth member of The Squad, Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley, has so far demurred, expressing “tremendous respect for her sisters-in-service.” (Let’s not forget who the senior senator of Pressley’s home commonwealth is.)

Still, it’s a pretty big boost for Sanders at a time when he really needs it. Other candidates are borrowing his ideas, especially “Medicare for all.” He has struggled to prove he has a second act after mobilizing young voters and giving Clinton a scare the last time around. His debate performances have been competent but rarely memorable, never dominating. He has improved his standing with Democrats of color — a poor showing with minority voters prevented him from challenging Clinton more seriously in 2016 — but not to the point where he is the preferred choice of black or Latino primary participants. (So far, that distinction belongs to Biden.)

That’s why having young women of color who are energetic and popular with the left flank of the Democratic base endorsing Sanders is so beneficial to his candidacy. The question is what The Squad gets out of it. They are all ascendant figures, while Sanders seems less likely to win the nomination. Why not hitch their wagons to Warren?

Some Democrats sum up the difference in a word: socialism. “AOC and her sisters are socialists and so is Bernie Sanders,” said Brad Bannon, a strategist who advises liberal candidates and causes. “Warren goes out of her way to say that she is a capitalist. The members of The Squad, like Sanders, are ideologues and do not make pragmatic decisions like many politicians. AOC also worked for Sanders in 2016.”

Indeed, Sanders frequently makes this distinction himself. “Elizabeth, I think as you know, has said that she is a capitalist through her bones,” Sanders told ABC’s This Week. “I’m not.” (The quote comes from something Warren said to a New England business group in a 2018 talk.) Critically, Warren was also a Clinton supporter in 2016. This detracted from her revolutionary bona fides, which peaked with Occupy Wall Street a decade ago. The almost Tea Party-like mood on the Left to topple centrist Democrats in blue-district primaries has not helped Warren either.

For her part, Ocasio-Cortez isn’t critical of Warren. “I think she’s a fabulous candidate,” she told CBS News in an interview. “Frankly, Senator Sanders, Senator Warren, and myself are all on the same team in the party.” Ocasio-Cortez told a Warren supporter on Twitter, “We should all be grateful to have such strong, progressive leadership to choose from. For many it’s a tough choice precisely because of how great they are. I’m confident we will all come together on the other side stronger than ever.”

But Ocasio-Cortez and her allies see Sanders as the better movement-building candidate. That, not socialism, is the word that the barista-turned-congresswoman most frequently uses when justifying her endorsement. “For me, it wasn’t even about helping the senator. It was a moment of clarity for me personally in saying, ‘What role do I want to play?’” she told NBC. “And I want to be a part of a mass movement.”

The losing presidential campaigns of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern famously built movements and changed the course of their respective political parties. But in recent years, we have seen that candidates do not even have to get particularly close to the nomination to have this kind of impact. Pat Robertson’s 1988 presidential campaign helped grow the organized Christian Right into an even more powerful force in the 1990s GOP. Howard Dean helped mobilize the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” even though he actually flopped at the ballot box in 2004. Ron Paul, however briefly, breathed life into the moribund libertarian wing of the Republican Party in 2008 and 2012. Pat Buchanan and Jerry Brown more closely resemble their parties as of 2019 than the men who resoundingly beat them in the 1992 primaries.

“Whatever happens to Sanders’s 2020 campaign, the movement behind it likely will continue to be a force to be reckoned with,” Jamie Downie writes in the Washington Post. “Dozens of democratic socialists have been elected to federal, state and local offices across the U.S. Membership in the Democratic Socialists of America — cofounded by [Michael] Harrington — has grown tenfold since 2015.”

“If Ocasio-Cortez portrayed Sanders as the only trustworthy candidate in a field of sellouts and shills, it could make uniting the party after the nomination — either behind Sanders or one of his opponents — that much more difficult. But Ocasio-Cortez went a different route,” writes Ryan Grim at the Intercept. “Put simply, she said that her endorsement is intended to help build a movement, which would shape not just whether Democrats beat President Donald Trump in 2020, but how.”

Progressives aligned with Ocasio-Cortez see Sanders, not Warren, as the most promising candidate with whom to rebuild something like Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition — or, as Grim puts it, the Vermont senator is the “ideal leader of [a] multiracial, working-class movement.” Warren’s appeal is more heavily concentrated among affluent, college-educated white liberals, a coalition that has in the past proven incapable of beating the party’s centrist establishment without minority support. That’s why Barack Obama succeeded where Dean, and Gary Hart before him, failed.

But there is a risk involved with this strategy. Biden’s lead has been strongest when the progressive vote has been split between Warren and Sanders, with the former vice president having the centrist lane all to himself, though there are signs that South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and even California Sen. Kamala Harris are trying to muscle into that territory. He has looked most vulnerable when Warren has appeared to consolidate liberal support behind her.

Keeping Sanders viable could conceivably restore the ceiling on Warren’s support to Biden’s benefit. Biden has already rebounded modestly in some early state polling. A CNN national poll in late October showed him with his strongest support since he announced his campaign in April, not coincidentally with Warren and Sanders closely knotted together in second place. Biden has gained among conservative Democrats and minority voters, the cable news network’s polling found, while the progressives remain split. If you add up support for Sanders and Warren, the progressives edge Biden even in this poll (albeit within the margin of error).

Bringing together Sanders and Warren voters was always the most mathematically plausible way to beat Biden, but that was always easier said than done. A fascinating Politico report from back in July tells the tale: “In poll after poll, Sanders appeals to lower-income and less-educated people; Warren beats Sanders among those with postgraduate degrees. Sanders performs better with men, Warren with women. Younger people who vote less frequently are more often in Sanders’ camp; seniors who follow politics closely generally prefer Warren.” Sanders also has more black support.

If Sanders’s continued presence in the race leads to a more centrist nominee, that could backfire on The Squad. Not only would that be the opposite of what they would prefer as an outcome at the Democratic National Convention, but it could inspire a backlash against them among liberals, especially if the party’s nominee goes on to lose against Trump (or, depending on how impeachment goes, Mike Pence). Progressives have turned on their heroes before in these situations. The biggest example is Ralph Nader, whose 2000 candidacy likely tipped Florida, and the White House, away from Al Gore to George W. Bush. Jill Stein was always a more marginal figure than Nader, but the 2016 Green Party nominee is now seen by many liberals as a deliberate spoiler at best and a Russian asset at worst.

“The Squad, minus Pressley who continues to clearly stake out her own ground, is showing up for Bernie when he needs it most,” said Democratic strategist Jessica Tarlov. “Polling shows real concerns over his health and age right at the same time that Warren has been consolidating left-wing support. I expect their endorsement to give him a tiny bump with millennial and GenZ voters as well as a lot of good coverage, but see his support as locked in with an upper limit of about 15% no matter the endorsement.” That is, not enough to win but more than enough to affect the outcome of a close race.

At the same time, Sanders has no reason to drop out even without The Squad’s endorsement. He is outpolling the vast majority of the field. He is beating all the Democrats in fundraising, except for self-funding billionaire Tom Steyer. Sanders’s $28 million haul from July to September dwarfs Biden’s. Money is supposed to be the main advantage an establishment candidate has over an insurgent campaign. That’s not the case here.

Unlike the Republicans, Democrats don’t have winner-take-all primaries. A candidate winning a consistent 15% to 20% of the vote can continue to rack up delegates. While contested conventions remain the great white whale of modern political journalism, it is possible Sanders could arrive in Milwaukee a kingmaker even if he cannot break out of third place. For a movement-building candidacy, that is not a bad place to be.

The Squad has frequently been criticized for being immature, inexperienced, and shortsighted politically, not least by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But as they gravitate toward Sanders, they may be thinking longer term than taking down Trump in the next election.

W. James Antle III is the editor of the American Conservative.