The politician generating the most hype this summer isn’t Hillary Clinton. It’s not Jeb Bush. It’s not even Donald Trump.
It’s self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.
Sanders, a 73-year old Independent senator from Vermont, is surging in the Democratic presidential primary, shocking veteran politicos and pundits everywhere.
Or so the media would have you believe.
It is true that Sanders has drawn record crowds all across the country at his campaign rallies, and that Clinton has stolen some of his anti-capitalist rhetoric that is firing up liberal voters. But I highly doubt she is "feeling the bern,” as his supporters say.
In fact, many have speculated that Clinton is ecstatic that Sanders has stepped forward as her main challenger for the nomination because he is not formidable at all.
Sanders is collecting much of the same support that would have come to Elizabeth Warren, another popular New England liberal, had she not decided to sit this election out. But Warren would have been a much more viable candidate, and would have taken away one of Clinton’s biggest campaign assets — her gender.
Sanders’ problem is not that his views are wildly unpopular — though 50 percent of Americans in a recent Gallup poll said they would not vote for a socialist as president. It’s that he doesn’t have the organizational strength or party support to win.
Take money as an example. In the last fundraising quarter, Sanders raised $15 million compared to Clinton’s $45 million.
Then there are the polls. They consistently show Bernie lagging far behind, despite all the free media he has been getting.
In 2008, Obama found a winning strategy against Clinton in part by staking out a position to the left of her on many issues, most notably the Iraq War. Sanders’ supporters are hoping that he can do the same thing.
But Obama planned his run for years, amassed a dream team of strategists and organizers, aggressively out fundraised Clinton from the start and lined up key members of the party as supporters. Sanders has done none of those things.
Many have suggested he could win in the key state of New Hampshire due to his base in neighboring Vermont and the state’s history of supporting long-shot candidates. A recent much-talked-about CNN poll even showed Sanders within single digits of Clinton in the state.
But it's an open question as to if he will even be on the ballot in New Hampshire due to his status in Congress as an Independent.
That's just one example of the main issue that Sanders will face — running a massive yet competent campaign. Regardless of your positions, it is incredibly hard to get elected president. And I just don’t think that Sanders has it in him to beat the Clinton juggernaut.
How’s that for a “bern”?