Why the Democratic Establishment Is Wearing Romney Beer Goggles

As the daily barrage of stories from the Democratic establishment calling for Bernie Sanders to drop out of the primary permeate the Internet, I wonder if the hierarchy of high-brow journalists and Democratic Party operatives have been struck with a wicked case of Romney-ism.

You know — the irrational illness that struck legions of Mitt Romney advisers, conservative journalists and pundits that made them hallucinate a coming Romney landslide over President Barack Obama in 2012.

Let’s be clear — Bernie Sanders is way behind in pledged delegates and would require a string of wide-margin victories in the remaining 13 contests to close the pledged delegate gap with Hillary Clinton enough to make super delegates have to think.

But hearing pundit after pundit and journalist after journalist explain how Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to go up against Donald Trump defies actual facts. And these same pundits underestimate how Trump is the absolute best candidate to take on Clinton.

Putting aside the fact that Sanders has been polling far better than Clinton against Trump for months — which Clinton allies continue to laughably say doesn’t matter — the former Secretary of State has the highest unfavorability of any Democratic nominee in history.

She’s got a 20% favorability rating among independents — a drop of 15% points in four months.

Then there’s the fact that 1-in-4 Bernie Sanders supporters say they won’t support Clinton.

From speaking with hundreds of Sanders supporters across the country over the last five months, I can tell you that number is likely closer to 2-out-of-4 (and will definitely be if Clinton refuses to offer serious concessions to Sanders at the Democratic convention).

Most importantly, despite Donald Trump’s near impossible odds of getting many votes from Latinos and African Americans, he’ll appeal to many independents and “Reagan Democrats” who’ve been left behind over the last three decades as the Democratic Party shifted rightward—complicit in the offshoring of millions of jobs and the rise of money in politics.

The main reason Trump so easily defeated the once-thought-of GOP frontrunner Jeb Bush was because he skillfully blanketed him as a puppet to his big-money masters. That’s a popular sentiment with both Republican and Democratic voters, both of whom are repelled by political “insiders” with longtime marriages to special interests.

For those Clinton supporters who decried Sanders’ getting “personal” by simply pointing out her long record of taking money from the same special interests she claims she’ll go after—he barely laid a glove on her compared to what Trump will do.

What’s Clinton going to say when Trump — who operates with no script and little calculation—pounds home the message of puppet Hillary… bring a Goldman Sachs banker on stage for a personal testimony?

When Trump, who’s no stranger to flip-flopping but doesn’t have the same actual governing record to analyze, points out Clinton’s countless “evolutions” on policy, will Clinton have a satisfactory answer for the rising anti-establishment voter?

How about when Trump laces into her pretty anemic record on supporting every foreign policy intervention of the 21 century that ended up blowing up in America’s face? Sorry isn’t going to cut it for a war-weary country fed up with the trillions spent overseas rather than here at home.

And for those Democratic know-it-alls: do you really think Donald Trump doesn’t already have in his possession—or can track down in 15 minutes—the transcripts of Clinton’s speeches to big banks, which he’ll deploy at the exact worst time for her in the general election? Apparently, some journalists already have it on hand.

When that happens — in this brutal year for any politician with cushy connections to Wall Street — Clinton will have to dig herself out of the same big hole Mitt Romney self-deported to.

There’s also a factor that’s not able to be polled, but could be crucial: Donald Trump might be the most capable politician in America able to perform an extreme makeover in six months.

Sure, there’s minority voters Trump’s lost for good. But with a historically weak Democratic nominee up against an expert in branding — and rebranding on-the-fly — why wouldn’t a successful businessman proposing pro-worker trade policy, bringing jobs back to America, and limited foreign entanglements appeal to conservative Democrats, Independents and, yes, a decent sliver of young Democrats unable to pull the lever for Clinton.

In terms of Vice Presidential picks, short of Elizabeth Warren, Clinton will have few figures to pick from that will ignite the progressive base fueling the Sanders movement.

Trump, on the other hand, has an array of potential VP picks that could serve key purposes. Popular Ohio Governor John Kasich could help him compete for Ohio. New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez could help Trump rebuild bridges with Latinos. Newt Gingrich or a more-current establishment Republican could help heal the wounds between Trump and the #NeverTrump movement.

And even though Clinton has done a terrific job of making the mere suggestion absurd — what if the dozen of FBI agents currently investigating her decide to indict her?

Yes, Democratic establishment… the highly unliked candidate embodying the corporate cushiness Americans have raged against is the better candidate.

Over the most popular Senator in America, who’s polling better against the Republican nominee, and has ignited a movement among vital young voters while also appealing to workers and Independents.

Keep your goggles on — just don’t throw them at Sanders voters if Clinton loses.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!