Opinion: If only Bernie Sanders had won the nomination in 2016

Politics is an unending game of “what if’s,” especially for Democrats. Every four years, we hear a similar lament: “What if Michael Dukakis had not worn that silly hat in the tank?” “What if Al Gore had campaigned with Bill Clinton in Tennessee?” “What if Kamala Harris had two or three more weeks?”

The truth is, who knows? But I do know the answer to one big “what if.” What if Bernie Sanders had won the Democratic nomination for president in 2016? And the answer is: Donald Trump would never have become president, because Bernie would have won the election.

For the record, I say that as a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, and one who worked hard for her in November. But I supported Sanders in the Democratic primary because I believed then and still believe today he would have been a stronger candidate against Trump.

So why didn’t Sanders get the nomination? Because the Democratic Party establishment — meaning the Clinton campaign, in cahoots with the Obama White House, the Democratic Senate leadership, and the Democratic National Committee — teamed up to smash him down. They couldn’t stand the fact that anyone would dare oppose Hillary Clinton.

It’s all spelled out in a powerful new book released last week by Tad Devine, Sanders’ 2016 campaign manager: “How the Democrats Screwed Bernie.” Devine documents the various ways Democratic insiders worked to thwart the Sanders campaign. Starting with the scheduling of debates.

In the run-up to the 2008 election, the DNC staged 25 debates among primary candidates. Yet then-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced only four debates in 2015, with the possibility of adding two more later. Sanders’ plea for more debates was ignored. Only in October 2016, when Wikileaks published emails from the Clinton campaign was it revealed that the DNC had agreed to whatever limited debate schedule Clinton wanted. The Sanders campaign was not consulted.

As campaign manager, you’d expect a little bias when Devine asserts, citing Sanders’ primary wins in Michigan and Wisconsin, “those victories suggested strongly that it was Bernie, not Trump, who would have prevailed in the 2016 general election.” But Devine proves his point.

Ironically, it is because Sanders and Trump were talking about the same issues. Both were outsiders, and both aimed their campaign at outsiders: those who felt left behind, those struggling just to make ends meet, those who faced challenges like getting health care for their families and paying for their kids’ education, those who didn’t trust established politicians.

As Devine puts it, they were “two sides of the same populist coin.” Devine explains: “He and Bernie both embodied versions of the outsider ‘change’ candidate that the public not only desperately sought but demanded. The difference is that the Republican Party eventually rallied around their change candidate, while the Democratic Party sabotaged theirs.”

Think about it. Had the choice in 2016 been between Sanders and Trump, it would have been an authentic populist versus a phony populist. One who knew what he was talking about, the other who was making it up. Voters would have spotted the phony populist. Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz did. The real populist would have won — and think how much better off we’d be today.

But Devine’s book is important, not just to tell the truth about 2016, but to warn Democrats not to make the same mistakes today. It’s pretty clear that too many Democratic leaders like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) didn’t learn anything from 2016. They’re trying to squash today’s progressive candidates, just like the establishment squashed Bernie Sanders in 2016.

In New York City, Schumer last year refused to endorse Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor. In Maine, he tried to dictate Janet Mills as Senate candidate. In Michigan, he is backing establishment candidate and U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens against popular health advocate Abdul El-Sayed. In every case, Sanders is on the other side. His anti-establishment, outsider message — focused on health care, living wage, climate change, higher prices, college tuition and other issues people really care about — is what voters are yearning for today. His endorsement is worth more than Schumer’s.

On my podcast I asked Tad Devine what’s the most important thing Democrats should learn from 2016. He didn’t hesitate a second: “Let the voters decide who they want as their candidate,” he said. “Don’t try to dictate those decisions from Washington.” Starting with Chuck Schumer, Democrats could learn no better lesson.

Bill Press is host of The Bill Press Pod. He is the author of “From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.”

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.