What’s behind Bernie Sanders’ enormous rallies
Democratic
presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks to a sold-out crowd during
a campaign event in Los Angeles on Monday. (Photo: Marcus Yam/Los
Angeles Times via Getty Images)
Petros looked puzzled.
“Is something going on tonight?” he asked.
“Yes,” I said. “Bernie Sanders is having a rally.”
Petros still looked puzzled. I set off down the side of the freeway.
I’d
come to see Sanders speak out of a sense of professional duty, at least
in part. Presidential candidates usually descend on deep blue
California for one reason and one reason only: money. They fly in,
flutter around a $40,000-per-head celebrity fundraiser at George Clooney’s house and
fly out. Actual rallies with actual voters here are rare. As a Los
Angeles-based political reporter, I would have been remiss if I had
skipped the first big one in years.
But
I’ll admit that I was personally curious as well. At first, many in the
press had dismissed Sanders, the 73-year-old Vermont senator and
self-described democratic socialist who announced his presidential ambitions in April, as a cranky, irrelevant gadfly. And yet now, three months later, Sanders was polling at 36 percent in New Hampshire — a mere six points behind Hillary Clinton, the all-but-anointed Democratic nominee. In Iowa he was already claiming a quarter of the vote.
And for weeks he’d been touring cities and college towns around the
country, attracting audiences several times larger than anything Clinton
or her would-be Republican rivals could hope for — even though people
like Petros had never heard of him.
What’s
going on? What is a huge Bernie Sanders rally actually like in person?
And why are so many progressives suddenly so riled up about a career
legislator whose hunched shoulders, messy white hair and gruff Brooklyn
yawp they’ve spent the last few decades ignoring on C-SPAN?
After
trudging through the trash on the shoulder of the 110 and
circumnavigating an endless, gated parking lot, I finally arrived at the
arena. My initial impression was that I’d been here before. I attended
my first political rally when I was a freshman in college — a concert
for Ralph Nader at Madison Square Garden. (A cute girl with an extra
ticket invited me at the last minute.) I remember a man who was vowing
to fast until Nader, then a Green Party candidate, was allowed to debate
George W. Bush and Al Gore. I remember stoned undergrads in “Bush and
Gore Make Me Wanna Ralph” T-shirts. I remember dyed green hair. I
remember multiple piercings. And I remember a lot of older people — baby
boomers who might have once been accused of smelling like patchouli but
who now looked just like the conservative churchgoers you’d meet at
Republican events.
Presidential candidate Ralph Nader speaks at a Green Party rally at
Madison Square Garden in New York in October 2000. (Photo: Evan
Agostini/ImageDirect via Getty Images)
The
line in L.A. was thousands and thousands of people long — it snaked
around the block — and stylistically, it seemed pretty similar. The
couple who pulled up in a yellow Corolla with a collage of bumper
stickers on the back (“Vote Dammit,” “Equality on My Mind,” “Minecraft,”
“Cthulhu”)
and “Honk 4 Bernie” and “#TakeBackAmerica” written in red marker on
their windows. The skinny, middle-aged African-American man in a black
Occupy Wall Street T-shirt and a large black hat. The flip-flops. The
backward baseball caps. The beards. The crowd was full of college kids
from nearby USC; young, progressive professionals; and liberal retirees
in loose-fitting Ralph Lauren. Mostly white, but still fairly diverse.
Near the entrance there was the usual rally-going array of activists
(“Ferguson is everywhere”) and opportunists (“Feel the Bern” buttons for
ONLY $5). As I entered the arena, “Turn! Turn! Turn!” by the Byrds was
playing on the PA.
Even Sanders’ speech sounded a lot like Nader’s. Back in 2000, Nader also slammed
big business for what he called “a corporate crime wave,” accusing both
the Democratic and Republican parties of being controlled by
corporations. “Our country has been sold to the highest bidder,” Nader
said. “We’re going backwards, while the rich are becoming superrich.” He
touted his plans for paid parental leave and paid sick leave. He
criticized America for failing to join the rest of the developed world
in enacting universal health care. And he railed against the criminal
justice system, arguing, “The major public housing project in this
country is building prison cells.” Afterward, voter Thomas King, then
22, contrasted Nader with that year’s Democratic Senate nominee from New
York. “I’m not too pleased with the fact that [Hillary] Clinton and the
New Democrats have moved so close to the center,” King told the New York Times. “This is a populist movement.”
Hearing
Sanders speak on Monday about an economy that is “rigged … to benefit
the people on top,” about how he “can’t be bought” by corporations,
about how it “makes a lot more sense to be investing in education than
incarceration,” about how it’s an “international embarrassment” that the
U.S. doesn’t have “Medicare for all,” and about how his “family
values,” unlike the GOP’s, encompass paid leave for parents, I couldn’t
help but feel a little déjà vu — even if the crowd roared after every
line like they’d never encountered another candidate willing to say
these kinds of things.
Sanders
supporters cheer at his campaign rally at the Los Angeles Memorial
Sports Arena on Monday. (Photo: Charles Ommanney/The Washington Post via
Getty Images)
Sanders
has real appeal for progressives craving an alternative to Clinton: the
dogged consistency, the ambitious policy prescriptions, the rumpled
authenticity. All of that came across more clearly on the stump than it
ever does on TV.
But
Nader was rumpled and authentic, too.That’s why I was more interested
Monday in the two big differences on display in Los Angeles between
Sanders and his anti-corporate predecessor — not to mention every other
major outsider candidate who’s come before, whether conservative (like
Ross Perot), libertarian (like Ron Paul) or liberal (like Robert La Follette).
The
first difference was the sheer size of the event. As soon as Sanders
waddled onstage in Los Angeles, he announced that “more than 27,000”
people were in attendance. Such claims are impossible to verify, but the
16,000-seat arena was nearly full, and thousands more were watching in
overflow areas outside the venue. The rally looked (and sounded) massive
— more like a deafening, ecstatic, slightly drunken rock concert than a
fringe political gathering. And the L.A. event wasn’t an isolated
incident. Roughly 28,000 people showed up for Sanders’ rally in
Portland, Ore., on Sunday. He drew 15,000 in Seattle; 11,000 in Phoenix;
10,000 in Madison, Wis.; 8,000 in Dallas; and 4,500 in New Orleans. All
told, Sanders has attracted more than 100,000 people to his campaign events in recent weeks.
That’s
completely unprecedented this early in a presidential primary cycle.
(The election is still 15 months away.) For comparison’s sake, Clinton’s
biggest crowd so far this year was 5,500. There were 15,000 people at
the Nader concert I saw in 2000 — but that was three weeks before
Election Day. Paul’s storied 2008 and 2012 crowds topped out around 10,000.
Sanders is even surpassing Barack Obama’s revolutionary 2008 campaign.
In February 2007, Obama drew 20,000 people to Town Lake in Austin,
Texas; in April, he attracted 20,000 to an outdoor rally at Yellow
Jacket Park in Atlanta; and in September, 24,000 came to see him speak in New York’s Washington Square Park. But Obama rallies didn’t pass the 28,000 mark until 2008.
The
second difference on display Monday was what I’ll call the
“responsiveness” of Sanders’ campaign. For the first few months after he
entered the contest, Sanders largely shied away from issues of racial equality:
bias in policing, mass incarceration, voting rights, the treatment of
unauthorized immigrants. In July, Sanders, who has always been “all
about unions, corporations — basically economic issues rather than
cultural ones,” according to an old friend and early political confidant,
appeared at Netroots Nation and frustrated civil rights activists when
he answered questions about racial issues by pivoting back to economic
ones. “Black lives of course matter,” he said defensively after he was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters. “If you don’t want me to be here, that’s OK.” In Seattle last weekend, another group of Black Lives Matter protesters took the stage and refused to let Sanders speak.
Sanders speaks at the rally at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena on Monday. (Photo: Ringo H.W. Chiu/AP)
Sanders
has a reputation for self-righteousness, and initially he seemed to be
sticking to his “it’s a class problem not a race problem” script. But in
the weeks since Netroots Nation, something seems to have changed.
First, the candidate took a meeting with Symone Sanders (no relation), a
young black organizer with the D.C.-based Coalition for Juvenile
Justice. He listened to her unsolicited advice on racial issues. Then he offered her a job as his national press secretary. A day after being interrupted in Seattle, the candidate released a sweeping policy platform designed to combat racial inequality.
And in Portland and Los Angeles, Symone Sanders debuted as the new
public face of the campaign, emceeing each event and introducing her
boss to his supporters.
“It’s
very important that we say those words: ‘black lives matter,’” Symone
Sanders said in L.A. “It’s also important that people in office turn
those words into action.”
A
few minutes later, Bernie Sanders pledged to do just that. “One year
after the death of Michael Brown,” he said from the podium, “there’s no
candidate who will fight harder to end institutional racism.”
Ultimately,
these two differences — the mind-boggling size of Sanders’ early
campaign events and the speed with which he has reshuffled his campaign
in response to activists’ concerns — may have less to do with the
messenger himself, or his message, than the changing world Sanders is
now trying to reach, and the tools he now has at his disposal to reach
it.
Nearly eight years ago, I wrote a story for Newsweek
about the rise of what some observers were then referring to as “long
tail” candidates for president. (The phrase was a reference to the
theory, popularized by Wired editor Chris Anderson, that “our economy and culture is shifting from mass markets to million of niches.”)
My argument was that we were beginning to move away from the
two-sizes-fit-all categories of Democrat and Republican and toward a
more personalized, motley politics.
“As
the Web allows niche voters to form communities, raise money and get
heard,” I wrote, “it’s inevitable that the major-party machines will
clash with — and ultimately accommodate — the individualized
constituencies they’re struggling to serve.”
The
experts I talked to made a couple of predictions. First, that “unlike
their predecessors, the next generation of niche politicians won’t
necessarily choose the third-party route. Instead, tomorrow’s most
successful narrowcasters will likely run as major-party candidates in
the primaries, where widely seen debates and easy ballot access will
bring exposure and credibility.” Second, while long-tail candidates
won’t win the White House anytime soon, “their niche concerns and vocal
supporters will demand unprecedented attention” — and mainstream
politicians will begin to mine their more marginal counterparts for
ideas (and votes).
The
sense I got Monday is that the Sanders campaign is the first full
realization of this concept. Instagram didn’t exist when Obama launched
his presidential campaign in 2007. The iPhone had yet to be released.
Twitter still hadn’t taken off. Facebook was a way to connect with your
real-life friends — not a global hub for news, marketing and politics.
A supporter takes pictures during the Sanders rally in Los Angeles on Monday. (Photo: Ringo H.W. Chiu/AP)
Since then, social media has permeated every aspect of our lives. It’s become our constant mobile companion. It basically is the
media at this point — the main way we absorb information about what’s
happening in the world. And that, in turn, has amplified the long-tail
effect on presidential politics. When every candidate is in your pocket
all the time, it’s easier to find the one who seems to speak for you;
when your feed is full of friends echoing your political passions, it’s
easier to feel like you’re part of something bigger than yourself — a “political revolution,”
as Sanders put in Los Angeles. Nothing is fringe; everything feels
mainstream. And when activists revolt, a candidate can’t help but hear;
every criticism is reposted, regrammed and retweeted until it becomes
impossible to ignore.
That’s a big part of the reason why more than 27,000 people showed up to see Sanders speak in Los Angeles: because everyone
seemed to be going. And it’s a big part of the reason why Sanders
shifted his stance on racial justice so quickly as well: because
everyone seemed to be complaining.
As
I was leaving the Memorial Sports Arena Monday night, I met a man named
Steve Smith. He’d caravanned into the city from Azusa with his wife and
four friends. I asked him what he thought of the rally.
“It
was absolutely electrifying — like seeing Zeppelin or the Who,” said
Smith, 61. “Compare this to Hillary — a couple hundred people with zero
enthusiasm. Sanders is the horse to keep your eye on. He’s the only
candidate I know who can get huge numbers of the under-25s out to vote.
The others don’t stand a chance.”
I
was going to ask whether Smith really thought Sanders could upend the
system — whether the senator from Vermont could do what Nader, Perot and
Paul had failed to do — or whether that was just how it seemed on a
warm night in Southern California, surrounded by tens of thousands of
hopeful supporters streaming north through Exposition Park. But then I
noticed him sniffing the air.
I sniffed too. Somebody was smoking pot.
“A familiar smell!” said Smith. He grinned. “Not bad at all.”
0 comments: