Sanders Delegates Caused a “Shitshow” in 2016. Here’s Why That Might Not Happen Again.

Some Bernie backers say they aren’t interested in disrupting the 2020 convention. Plus, it would be much harder to do this time.

Delegates supporting Bernie Sanders wave signs during the opening proceedings at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 25, 2016.Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Had Democrats descended upon Milwaukee for their partyā€™s convention as theyā€™d originally planned, there would, without question, have been protests. Demonstrators would have likely demanded Joe Biden adopt Bernie Sandersā€™ single-payer health care proposal, or perhaps pushed the former vice president to end Democratsā€™ unqualified support for Israel. In between the speeches and pageantry, some delegates would clog up the dozens of caucus meetings to push for a Green New Deal. And when Biden officially accepted the Democratic nomination, a sea of ā€œMedicare for Allā€ signs might have been hoisted high above the heads of more than 1,000 delegates attending the convention on Sandersā€™ behalf.

There will, of course, be no mass gathering in Milwaukee next week. Democrats canceled the majority of planned events, and Biden has declined to travel to Wisconsin. The Sanders wing of the party will have little representation at the now-virtual gathering: Only Sanders and his surrogate Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have been invited to speakā€”and Ocasio-Cortez has only been given a minute at the lectern. The event will include ā€œlive and curated contentā€ from all 57 US states and territories, according to a DNC spokesperson. But whatever form that takes will afford little opportunity for the 27 percent of delegates amassed by Sanders to register any lingering dissatisfaction with Bidenā€™s candidacy and the Democratic Party.

And thatā€™s disappointing to some Sanders supporters, a dozen of whom spoke with Mother Jones about the upcoming convention. ā€œIt was hard enough to do anything influential at an in-person convention,ā€ says Mark Malouf, a Sanders delegate from California who also attended the 2016 convention. ā€œA lot of people feel like, with this all being online, weā€™re being told to sit down and shut up.ā€

The display from many Sanders backers at the 2016 convention could fairly be describedā€”in the words of two 2016 Sanders delegates I spoke withā€”as a ā€œshitshow.ā€ Disappointed by Hillary Clintonā€™s nomination and enraged over a WikiLeaks email dump that showed some DNC officials had disparaged Sanders during the primary campaign, Sanders delegates interrupted nearly all of the speeches with jeers and chants.

Sanders supporters from the California delegation instigated much of the chaos. ā€œIt didnā€™t matter if it was the president of Planned Parenthood or John Lewisā€”you had people screaming at them,ā€ recalls Malouf, who joined his delegation in booing Clintonā€™s running mate, Tim Kaine. ā€œI felt like that made us look really bad and gave what some in the media were looking for: To make us look ridiculous and then write us off as a bunch of dewy-eyed radicals.ā€ Before he took the stage to speak in 2016, Sanders convened a meeting with his delegates to tell them, in essence, to knock it off.

The Sanders campaign aimed to quash those antics this time around. In May, it asked delegates to sign a code of conduct in which they promised to engage with their fellow DNC attendees ā€œwith respect and a spirit of cooperativeness, even if I disagree with them.ā€ But even without the agreement, Sanders supporters told me they werenā€™t seeking an encore performance. ā€œI donā€™t think too many people want to get marked as having done stuff to harm the efforts to defeat Donald Trump,ā€ says Alan Minsky, the executive director of the Progressive Democrats of America and a Sanders delegate from California. ā€œIā€™m not hearing a lot of people making the claims we heard last time.ā€

Some would wonder whether they would even need to. In 2016, Sanders remained in the primary until the bitter end mainly to make a point: Delegates would be the only way for the outsider to have a say in the partyā€™s direction. This cycle, Sanders opted for the inside route: He suspended his campaign as soon as his path to the nomination became impossible and sent aides to negotiate favorable terms of surrender. That resulted in the ā€œunity task forcesā€ in which Sanders and Biden allies jointly developed policy recommendations for the former vice president and the DNC platform.

Thanks in part to those efforts, Biden is now running on the most progressive presidential platform in modern history. The draft DNC platform, which delegates are voting on this week, includes its first-ever nod to Medicare for All, noting that Democrats ā€œwelcome advocatesā€ who support the single-payer approach. The DNC rules committee voted unanimously to extend a 2018 provision that limits the powers of superdelegates, a win for the Sanders allies who now serve on the DNC. ā€œWeā€™re in a much better position today than we were in 2016,ā€ says Yasmine Taeb, a DNC member and Sanders supporter from Virginia. ā€œWeā€™re able to advise the Bernie supporters on the outside.ā€

In a video call with delegates late last month, Sanders urged them to join him in uniting behind Bidenā€”while continuing their efforts to push the Democratic establishment to the left. Some of his most vocal backers have gone less quietly. Former Ohio state senator and Sanders campaign co-chair Nina Turner slammed the policy task forces for ā€œpretending like itā€™s kumbayaā€ while leaving out Sandersā€™ top priorities, such as Medicare for All. Progressives, she told Yahoo News last month, must be prepared to not give Bidenā€™s would-be administration ā€œa momentā€™s rest.ā€ And all those insider gains Sanders and his DNC-serving supporters have made havenā€™t necessarily translated into trust among his delegates broadly. ā€œMany still see the DNC as being completely and totally full of loyalists to Hillary,ā€ Taeb says.

Norman Solomon, a Sanders California delegate and national director of Sanders-aligned RootsAction.org, says ā€œa lot of activists have stepped up to fill the gapā€ after Sanders decided against a prolonged campaign to amass as many additional delegates as possible. The nature of any planned protests had to be overhauled once the convention went digital. The focus, Solomon says, has been on Medicare for Allā€”ā€œnot just espousing it, but by tangibly fighting in the convention context to assert the need for it,ā€ he says. Sanders supporters argue that the idea is not only popular among Democrats, but that present circumstances demand it. “Weā€™re in the midst of a pandemic and millions of Americans have lost jobs,ā€ Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a national co-chair of Sandersā€™ campaign, tells me. ā€œThere should be a moral imperative for Medicare for All.ā€ 

Biden disagrees. He supports adding a public option to Obamacare and expanding Medicare to people as young as 60, but he has repeatedly he criticized Sandersā€™ plan as too costly and unrealistic, even as recently as July. A petition organized by Sandersā€™ Nevada delegation asks delegates to vote against the DNC platform unless it explicitly includes Medicare for All. More than 800 delegates, including Khanna, have signed on.

Sanders delegates from California have also organized a ā€œshadow conventionā€ to draw attention to Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and criminal justice reforms that Biden has not yet committed to. The agenda includes streamed speeches from progressive leaders as well as in-person events, such as a car caravan around Disneyland to demand Medicare for All and a socially distanced rally at a state prison.

Those efforts are an attempt to ā€œreframeā€ the convention away from a message of ā€œitā€™s simply time to get in line,ā€ Solomon says. ā€œProgressives didnā€™t win this nomination fight, but we recognize the progressive fight is 24/7, 365.ā€

But other Sanders delegates arenā€™t sure this is the right forum for that fight. ā€œWould I rather have our platform speak unequivocally in support for Medicare for All or Palestine? Absolutely. Will I vote against the platform because of that? I donā€™t think so,ā€ says Ray McKinnon, a DNC member and Sanders supporter from North Carolina.

McKinnon, who is Black, worries that too much division at this crucial moment could be especially dangerous for Americans of color. ā€œFolks who are not going to bear in their bodies the consequences of four more years of Donald Trump seem to be the loudest,ā€ he says. ā€œWe need to stop talking about the luxury of a protest vote.ā€

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate