A left-populist? Bernie is a Socialist. Read the Democratic Socialists of America's website. But Liberal Patriot, all Socialists who support Bernie Sanders say that socialism is a right wing trope learned in right wing gulags. The Democratic Socialists of America label themselves as "America's largest socialist organization". In the "who we are" section of the DSOA's website they write "we are socialists". Sorry but I am over your bullshit about the right is stupid. No one in the left is a Socialist. In fact we are moderates. You Democratic Socialists are Socialists. The organization you are a member of is "America's largest socialist organization".
Trump and Bernie Sanders mirror each other. One wants oppression by fascism the other favors oppression by socialism.
Yes, Virginia, Democratic Socialists are socialists.
Bernie praised the Castro regimes Communist indoctrination camps as a fine literacy program. F Bernie Sanders and f Donald Trump. Both have ended the greatest political experiment ever devised by mankind.
Sanders is not and never has been a Democrat. He periodically raised his chameleon head to use the DNC and misuse Democrat Vermont and national voters for his own selfish political gain to forever fluff his ego and remain on the taxpayer dime, despite accomplishing very little since 1981.
Rather than looking for a Sanders replacement from a rural area, you might broaden the net to consider successful people, successful in their prior life, who have extensive experience working with and employing blue collar workers. That has been President Trump’s magic power. He personally knows hundreds of working class people, and deeply appreciates their essential contributions to his companies success.
In "The Madhouse of Change" Eric Hoffer asked "Can mass movements do aught for the [N-word]?"
Let us rephrase his question: "can politics do aught for the average American?"
I suggest that the answer is No. Since the end of the agricultural age we have seen five technological revolutions, from machine textiles to the Internet. And now AI.
Do you think, Justin Vassallo, that any politician or activist ever had a clue about any of these matters? Or ever will have? Especially Our Bernie and his acolytes.
Sanders was a virtual nobody before he took the biggest decision of his political career. He decided to confront basically the whole Democratic party, including the Clintons and Obama, in order to slow down the coronation of Hillary.
He could do this because of his age. Any other politician thinking of his long term career would to this day be careful not to risk campaign contributions be going against party leadership.
HRC already had been the 2007/2008 primary frontrunner, before Black Jesus Obama pilfered her platform and the DNC internal divisions decided a black man had to be president before a white woman. Her 2016 campaign was that of a long distance runner compared to ridiculous short print poseur non-Democrat Sanders.
Trump only won because roughly 250,000 bitter misogynist Bernie Bros in 3 key electoral states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan voted for Trump. It was enough to swing the Electoral College to Trump. The many 2016 campaign autopsies came to this conclusion.
The piece does a good job identifying the “Sanders gap,” but I think it stops at symptoms instead of getting to the underlying cause. It’s true the left has lost institutions like unions and rural associations. It’s also true many of its leaders are more urban and culturally distant from large parts of the country. But those are downstream effects. The more important question is: why did those institutions weaken, and why don’t current leaders rebuild them?
Part of the answer is that we’re now operating in a low-trust environment. People no longer default to believing institutions, whether government, media, or even expert communities. That means political arguments can’t rely on authority alone. They have to make sense to people using their own internal logic and lived experience.
This is where a lot of today’s progressive politics runs into trouble. It’s not that it lacks moral conviction or policy detail. It’s that it often assumes a shared framework that much of the country simply doesn’t operate within. When arguments feel inconsistent with how people understand risk, fairness, or common rules, especially after trust has already been weakened, people don’t just disagree. They disengage.
Sanders was unusual because he largely avoided that trap. He stayed rooted in a class-based, anti-corruption framework that was legible across cultural lines. People didn’t have to share his ideology to understand what he was saying or why he believed it. Just as importantly, he came across as internally consistent over a long period of time, which matters a great deal when trust is low. What made him hard to replace isn’t just his policy mix or personality. It’s that most of the next generation of leaders have already been shaped by the very institutional and cultural dynamics that limit their reach. In some cases, you can even see how being pulled more tightly into the party’s broader framework reduces a leader’s distinctiveness and, with it, their ability to build a wider coalition.
So the succession problem isn’t just about finding the next Sanders. It’s about whether the left can produce leaders who are both substantively progressive and broadly legible outside their own cultural ecosystem, and whether it can do that in a country where institutional trust has already broken down. Until that’s addressed, the gap the article describes is likely to persist.
I think there’s a piece of truth in what you’re saying, and I do think the idea of institutions being replaced plays a role. At the same time, I think there are a few additional factors that help explain why the loss of trust became so widespread.
Part of it is what you’re getting at. When institutions take on roles they don’t fully understand or can’t effectively replace, people feel that gap. But another part is more basic. Institutions lose trust when they don’t follow their own logic, overstate certainty, or make claims that later turn out to be obviously wrong. Once that happens a few times, people don’t just adjust on one issue. They start pulling back their trust more broadly.
And I think this goes beyond any one area like religion. There are plenty of people with no connection to religion who still have the same lack of trust, which suggests something broader is going on.
So I’d frame it less as any one cause and more as a breakdown in credibility across multiple systems. When that weakens, people stop deferring and rely more on their own judgment.
The religion comment is simply that leftism IS the most common religion now.
It is faith based. It gives people a purpose and a community.
They place their religious icons (pride flags) everywhere and anywhere.
They indoctrinate children at every opportunity (libraries, schools, movies).
The problem with that is that nobody treats it like a religion (keeps it out of public schools and courts, etc). And it has had very little time to mature as a religion so the adherents very very often are batshht insane.
I am tired of all these factions. They each have some strong points. They each have some weak points. Strong leadership from a 2028 candidate should scramble the whole thing into a winning omelette. Winning presidential candidates have always done this. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, even Trump. Let's break some eggs and get on with it!
The last four names on your list had some policies I didn't like at all. It's been 50 years of declining wages and security. They all did some ok things, but mostly not so great.
I don't understand your point here at all. I'm wanting strong leadership to take what's good from the Democratic machine, clean up the Trump mess and do some good in the world. I assume we want the same thing. I don't give a crap about " my side winning".
Sanders had to change to have a chance of support from the Brahmin left who are the volunteers and journos that make the primaries.
He gave up on guns, gave up on immigration, and shut up about NAFTA etc. Go to one of those big rallies he throws with AOC and you see educated political hobbyists of the left. Great guy, and I love that Sanders can still use the words "working class" when everyone else is scared to say them, but the Sanders of ten years ago is gone.
A lot of people in 16 were saying "either Sanders or Trump" that sentiment is still there, but even more so.
Great analysis, but Sanders doesn't require a replacement. His once far Left positions are now mainstream Dem policy. In the areas where Sanders was Right of current Dem dogma, Immigration and Globalization, Bernie moved Left to embrace current Dem policies.
When the Dem Party sported Clinton policies, Sanders was an outlier. Bernie long preached globalization and unrestricted Immigration would level Blue Collar living standards, but recently Sanders abandoned that ship.
Sanders and Dems now march in lockstep in support of taxation, dependency, and Open Borders, above all else. Bernie has always been pro taxes, but once Sanders expected them to support only Americans, in actual need. Whether an aging Bernie became tired or lazy, while he still talks a good game on higher wages, Bernie now seems content to replace larger paychecks with massive government handouts.
Dems are seeking federalize California and New York state policies, that have moved Left, past Bernie, a half decade ago. Many Blue States have doubled state spending in 5 years, not counting massive increases in pension and healthcare costs.
Meanwhile, Dems have sought to encourage mass migration and government dependency, at every turn. 40% of Californians are Medicaid dependent. The number rises each year. Dems view NYC, where more than 1/2 of all households are foreign born or include a first generation immigrant, and 45% of residents are Medicaid dependent, as a template for the entire US.
The fact all immigrants, dwelling legally or otherwise, utilize welfare at rates 40%-150% higher than Americans, depending on their nation of origin, once would have enraged Sanders. Now Bernie is unbothered. In truth, both Bernie and Dems view dependency as a necessary evil. Dependency will bring about single party Dem rule, far faster than any other policy.
The fatal flaw for Dems has been our Republic. The wealthy will not cooperate, by remaining in Blue States. They have moved, en mass, to lower tax Red states, with higher living standards. They will, undoubtedly, continue to do so.
This leaves Dems with only one option, federalize Blue State policies that will leave the wealthy and regular taxpayers, with nowhere to run. Sanders doesn't need a replacement. In the fight for the soul of the Dem Party, he won. All it required was a complete about face on globalization and mass migration.
In my state of MN, every Democratic state senator, except for one, was pounding on Gov. Tim Walz’s office door — I’ve never seen them that angry. Can you guess why?
They were furious that Walz was going to sign a budget that eliminated taxpayer‑funded healthcare for adult illegal aliens. The Republicans control the state house, so this was the compromise Walz agreed upon in order to pass a budget.
Imagine if I entered Japan illegally, paid no taxes, and their politicians fought to give me free healthcare while many citizens go without. I could be convicted of a violent felony (multiple times), yet immigration detainers would not be honored to hand me over for deportation.
And if I did commit a violent crime, I probably wouldn't serve any time at all. My County Prosecutor Mary Moriarty, tried to offer a two-year plea deal to a murderer (the minimum under state law). Governor Tim Walz removed her from the case. But not before she insisted that Tim Walz discriminated against her because she's a lesbian.
In the 99% of cases where the governor doesn't intervene, she allows repeat violent offenders—rapists, carjackers, assaulters—back on the streets with little or no jail time. That’s why Minneapolis has already seen roughly 1,000 stolen cars this year, compared with only 200 in St. Paul; even accounting for population, crime across the river is four times lower.
The problem is that once you scratch beneath the surface ideology, the currently existing Democratic coalition has contradictory material concerns. In one corner you have the professional class and the welfare transfer payment recipients, who benefit from the federal deficit directly through increased asset prices and payments, who work in government jobs or in highly regulated industries, and who benefit from cheap labor and cheap imports (so-called “globalization”). In the opposite corner, you have the downwardly-mobile college-educated young and a few remaining fumes of the “working class”, who are in the party due to “social” issues or because they believe the working class branding that is, plainly, a meme of the past that has not been true in a generation or more. Both of these groups are seeing declines in their material standard of living directly because of the policies which benefit the first two groups. This is a core contradiction that cannot be resolved: the policies which help one group come directly at the expense of the other. The Party will continue to be incoherent and side with the first group of rentiers (also known as the Obama coalition), and will continue to bleed the second group to the Republicans. Sanders was the closest the party will come again to a populist candidate.
A left-populist? Bernie is a Socialist. Read the Democratic Socialists of America's website. But Liberal Patriot, all Socialists who support Bernie Sanders say that socialism is a right wing trope learned in right wing gulags. The Democratic Socialists of America label themselves as "America's largest socialist organization". In the "who we are" section of the DSOA's website they write "we are socialists". Sorry but I am over your bullshit about the right is stupid. No one in the left is a Socialist. In fact we are moderates. You Democratic Socialists are Socialists. The organization you are a member of is "America's largest socialist organization".
Trump and Bernie Sanders mirror each other. One wants oppression by fascism the other favors oppression by socialism.
Yes, Virginia, Democratic Socialists are socialists.
Bernie praised the Castro regimes Communist indoctrination camps as a fine literacy program. F Bernie Sanders and f Donald Trump. Both have ended the greatest political experiment ever devised by mankind.
Sanders is not and never has been a Democrat. He periodically raised his chameleon head to use the DNC and misuse Democrat Vermont and national voters for his own selfish political gain to forever fluff his ego and remain on the taxpayer dime, despite accomplishing very little since 1981.
Rather than looking for a Sanders replacement from a rural area, you might broaden the net to consider successful people, successful in their prior life, who have extensive experience working with and employing blue collar workers. That has been President Trump’s magic power. He personally knows hundreds of working class people, and deeply appreciates their essential contributions to his companies success.
The real issue is not personnel.
It is substrate.
Sanders was not just a bundle of policy positions,
but a rare social and regional form the current left struggles to reproduce.
He was just a completely vanilla Marxist, until he sold out for his 3rd house paid for by Clinton.
Indistinguishable from every other 60s hippie spoiled child of the upper-class.
Feel free to highlight anything he ever proposed policy-wise that wasn't straight from a pamphlet with a sickle on it oozing envy from every corner.
In "The Madhouse of Change" Eric Hoffer asked "Can mass movements do aught for the [N-word]?"
Let us rephrase his question: "can politics do aught for the average American?"
I suggest that the answer is No. Since the end of the agricultural age we have seen five technological revolutions, from machine textiles to the Internet. And now AI.
Do you think, Justin Vassallo, that any politician or activist ever had a clue about any of these matters? Or ever will have? Especially Our Bernie and his acolytes.
John Fetterman would have been perfect had he not had that stroke.
Sanders was a virtual nobody before he took the biggest decision of his political career. He decided to confront basically the whole Democratic party, including the Clintons and Obama, in order to slow down the coronation of Hillary.
He could do this because of his age. Any other politician thinking of his long term career would to this day be careful not to risk campaign contributions be going against party leadership.
HRC already had been the 2007/2008 primary frontrunner, before Black Jesus Obama pilfered her platform and the DNC internal divisions decided a black man had to be president before a white woman. Her 2016 campaign was that of a long distance runner compared to ridiculous short print poseur non-Democrat Sanders.
Trump only won because roughly 250,000 bitter misogynist Bernie Bros in 3 key electoral states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan voted for Trump. It was enough to swing the Electoral College to Trump. The many 2016 campaign autopsies came to this conclusion.
A bit like choosing the Captain of the Titanic.
The piece does a good job identifying the “Sanders gap,” but I think it stops at symptoms instead of getting to the underlying cause. It’s true the left has lost institutions like unions and rural associations. It’s also true many of its leaders are more urban and culturally distant from large parts of the country. But those are downstream effects. The more important question is: why did those institutions weaken, and why don’t current leaders rebuild them?
Part of the answer is that we’re now operating in a low-trust environment. People no longer default to believing institutions, whether government, media, or even expert communities. That means political arguments can’t rely on authority alone. They have to make sense to people using their own internal logic and lived experience.
This is where a lot of today’s progressive politics runs into trouble. It’s not that it lacks moral conviction or policy detail. It’s that it often assumes a shared framework that much of the country simply doesn’t operate within. When arguments feel inconsistent with how people understand risk, fairness, or common rules, especially after trust has already been weakened, people don’t just disagree. They disengage.
Sanders was unusual because he largely avoided that trap. He stayed rooted in a class-based, anti-corruption framework that was legible across cultural lines. People didn’t have to share his ideology to understand what he was saying or why he believed it. Just as importantly, he came across as internally consistent over a long period of time, which matters a great deal when trust is low. What made him hard to replace isn’t just his policy mix or personality. It’s that most of the next generation of leaders have already been shaped by the very institutional and cultural dynamics that limit their reach. In some cases, you can even see how being pulled more tightly into the party’s broader framework reduces a leader’s distinctiveness and, with it, their ability to build a wider coalition.
So the succession problem isn’t just about finding the next Sanders. It’s about whether the left can produce leaders who are both substantively progressive and broadly legible outside their own cultural ecosystem, and whether it can do that in a country where institutional trust has already broken down. Until that’s addressed, the gap the article describes is likely to persist.
It has a perception of moral conviction but lacks it. Progressives are lovers of humans in the abstract; they just can't stand people.
I agree that the causes on the left can definitely have elements that make them look and play out like a religion.
...more like a cult.
"why did those institutions weaken,"
Because leftists replaced them, and even religion itself, with Government.
The lure of an enforced Utopia is too strong for modern leftists to resist.
The plethora of unintended consequences are always hidden behind the saintly glowing aura of virtue emanating from the latest cause.
I think there’s a piece of truth in what you’re saying, and I do think the idea of institutions being replaced plays a role. At the same time, I think there are a few additional factors that help explain why the loss of trust became so widespread.
Part of it is what you’re getting at. When institutions take on roles they don’t fully understand or can’t effectively replace, people feel that gap. But another part is more basic. Institutions lose trust when they don’t follow their own logic, overstate certainty, or make claims that later turn out to be obviously wrong. Once that happens a few times, people don’t just adjust on one issue. They start pulling back their trust more broadly.
And I think this goes beyond any one area like religion. There are plenty of people with no connection to religion who still have the same lack of trust, which suggests something broader is going on.
So I’d frame it less as any one cause and more as a breakdown in credibility across multiple systems. When that weakens, people stop deferring and rely more on their own judgment.
The religion comment is simply that leftism IS the most common religion now.
It is faith based. It gives people a purpose and a community.
They place their religious icons (pride flags) everywhere and anywhere.
They indoctrinate children at every opportunity (libraries, schools, movies).
The problem with that is that nobody treats it like a religion (keeps it out of public schools and courts, etc). And it has had very little time to mature as a religion so the adherents very very often are batshht insane.
I am tired of all these factions. They each have some strong points. They each have some weak points. Strong leadership from a 2028 candidate should scramble the whole thing into a winning omelette. Winning presidential candidates have always done this. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, even Trump. Let's break some eggs and get on with it!
The last four names on your list had some policies I didn't like at all. It's been 50 years of declining wages and security. They all did some ok things, but mostly not so great.
WInning just for winnings sake alone is indeed classical leftism.
Anything for power.
I don't understand your point here at all. I'm wanting strong leadership to take what's good from the Democratic machine, clean up the Trump mess and do some good in the world. I assume we want the same thing. I don't give a crap about " my side winning".
What is good from the Dem machine? Men in women's sports and showers? Climate alarmism? Healthcare fraud? Learing center fraud?
What "Trump mess" needs cleaning? Secure borders? Low inflation? Intolerance of DEI racism?
When you pick some actual specifics, only then you will stand for something other than your political-sports team winning.
Why would you assume "we want the same thing"? No two intelligent people "want the same thing". Humans are unique.
A question more relevant would be who will next captain the titanic once she’s refloated? Only the doyenne on Marthas Vineyard will know.
who are you referring to?
Sanders had to change to have a chance of support from the Brahmin left who are the volunteers and journos that make the primaries.
He gave up on guns, gave up on immigration, and shut up about NAFTA etc. Go to one of those big rallies he throws with AOC and you see educated political hobbyists of the left. Great guy, and I love that Sanders can still use the words "working class" when everyone else is scared to say them, but the Sanders of ten years ago is gone.
A lot of people in 16 were saying "either Sanders or Trump" that sentiment is still there, but even more so.
AOC? Mamdani?
If these are the front runners oi the democratic party, the democratic party is screwed.
Was thinking the same thing. They keep picking (or coronating) candidates who are even more unelectable than the last ones that lost.
Great analysis, but Sanders doesn't require a replacement. His once far Left positions are now mainstream Dem policy. In the areas where Sanders was Right of current Dem dogma, Immigration and Globalization, Bernie moved Left to embrace current Dem policies.
When the Dem Party sported Clinton policies, Sanders was an outlier. Bernie long preached globalization and unrestricted Immigration would level Blue Collar living standards, but recently Sanders abandoned that ship.
Sanders and Dems now march in lockstep in support of taxation, dependency, and Open Borders, above all else. Bernie has always been pro taxes, but once Sanders expected them to support only Americans, in actual need. Whether an aging Bernie became tired or lazy, while he still talks a good game on higher wages, Bernie now seems content to replace larger paychecks with massive government handouts.
Dems are seeking federalize California and New York state policies, that have moved Left, past Bernie, a half decade ago. Many Blue States have doubled state spending in 5 years, not counting massive increases in pension and healthcare costs.
Meanwhile, Dems have sought to encourage mass migration and government dependency, at every turn. 40% of Californians are Medicaid dependent. The number rises each year. Dems view NYC, where more than 1/2 of all households are foreign born or include a first generation immigrant, and 45% of residents are Medicaid dependent, as a template for the entire US.
The fact all immigrants, dwelling legally or otherwise, utilize welfare at rates 40%-150% higher than Americans, depending on their nation of origin, once would have enraged Sanders. Now Bernie is unbothered. In truth, both Bernie and Dems view dependency as a necessary evil. Dependency will bring about single party Dem rule, far faster than any other policy.
The fatal flaw for Dems has been our Republic. The wealthy will not cooperate, by remaining in Blue States. They have moved, en mass, to lower tax Red states, with higher living standards. They will, undoubtedly, continue to do so.
This leaves Dems with only one option, federalize Blue State policies that will leave the wealthy and regular taxpayers, with nowhere to run. Sanders doesn't need a replacement. In the fight for the soul of the Dem Party, he won. All it required was a complete about face on globalization and mass migration.
In my state of MN, every Democratic state senator, except for one, was pounding on Gov. Tim Walz’s office door — I’ve never seen them that angry. Can you guess why?
They were furious that Walz was going to sign a budget that eliminated taxpayer‑funded healthcare for adult illegal aliens. The Republicans control the state house, so this was the compromise Walz agreed upon in order to pass a budget.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NBNkVstYDU
Imagine if I entered Japan illegally, paid no taxes, and their politicians fought to give me free healthcare while many citizens go without. I could be convicted of a violent felony (multiple times), yet immigration detainers would not be honored to hand me over for deportation.
And if I did commit a violent crime, I probably wouldn't serve any time at all. My County Prosecutor Mary Moriarty, tried to offer a two-year plea deal to a murderer (the minimum under state law). Governor Tim Walz removed her from the case. But not before she insisted that Tim Walz discriminated against her because she's a lesbian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHJ7xc9RIDU
In the 99% of cases where the governor doesn't intervene, she allows repeat violent offenders—rapists, carjackers, assaulters—back on the streets with little or no jail time. That’s why Minneapolis has already seen roughly 1,000 stolen cars this year, compared with only 200 in St. Paul; even accounting for population, crime across the river is four times lower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV4E6_kM7lg
It is either intentional maliciousness, a mental illness, or both
The problem is that once you scratch beneath the surface ideology, the currently existing Democratic coalition has contradictory material concerns. In one corner you have the professional class and the welfare transfer payment recipients, who benefit from the federal deficit directly through increased asset prices and payments, who work in government jobs or in highly regulated industries, and who benefit from cheap labor and cheap imports (so-called “globalization”). In the opposite corner, you have the downwardly-mobile college-educated young and a few remaining fumes of the “working class”, who are in the party due to “social” issues or because they believe the working class branding that is, plainly, a meme of the past that has not been true in a generation or more. Both of these groups are seeing declines in their material standard of living directly because of the policies which benefit the first two groups. This is a core contradiction that cannot be resolved: the policies which help one group come directly at the expense of the other. The Party will continue to be incoherent and side with the first group of rentiers (also known as the Obama coalition), and will continue to bleed the second group to the Republicans. Sanders was the closest the party will come again to a populist candidate.
The best way to carry out socialism is on a stretcher.