He’s Elizabeth Warren. But he’s not. Warren, the Massachusetts freshman Senator beloved by progressives, is an important voice on such matters as income inequality and still-too-big-to-fail banks that continue to threaten consumers. If Warren were in the race, she would force all candidates – not just Clinton – to give more than lip service to those issues. The problem for Clinton is that Warren would be a genuine threat. The Bay Stater would not likely win a primary against Clinton (which Warren has made clear she never wanted to do, anyway), but a primary would damage Clinton. Progressives would be wounded over the loss and disappointed with the winner, much as conservatives were unhappy with Mitt Romney in 2012. Sanders can raise those issues and keep them in the news, but without being a real threat to Clinton’s almost certain ascension to the nomination.


He’s not a Democrat. Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, which makes him the perfect person to serve the same role in a campaign he serves in the caucus. He can be a rabble-rouser (in the best sense of the word), rallying a certain wing of the party. His role as an independent means he’ll always be an outsider among the Democrats. That gives the Democratic field the veneer of being anti-establishment, without actually dividing the party. You can’t really divide a party if you’re not a member of it.

-snip-

He’ll never stop talking about campaign finance reform. This is an issue that desperately needs more attention, including from candidates who are increasingly losing control of their own campaigns to rogue super PACs. And nearly everyone is frustrated by it; no candidate enjoys having to raise pots of money or deal with the messaging done by PACS that cannot, by law, coordinate with the candidate. The problem is, you can’t win unless you raise a lot of money, so making campaign finance reform an issue always looks disingenuous when you’re running for president (see: Barack Obama in 2008, when he broke an earlier pledge to take federal matching funds and accept the limits that come with it). Sanders won’t raise as much money, and will have the credibility to talk about this critical issue and keep it in the minds of voters.


He’ll make the Democratic race about more than Clinton. Clinton’s advantage – but now, more her disadvantage – is that the entire media dialogue about the Democratic primary race is about her. It’s about deleted emails, funds raised by her family’s foundation and her performance after the Benghazi tragedy. The Republicans, meanwhile, are sharing the scrutiny, and are covered in the context of being rivals for the nomination. Having Sanders in changes the storyline for Clinton, and takes the heat off a bit. His presence makes the narrative more about a horse race. But at the same time, he will make the race about issues, particularly those that otherwise might not get raised.

-snip-