Bernie's 'Limited Resources' Problem Is the Most Honest Budget Statement of the Summer

Last Wednesday, the most honest sentence to come out of American politics was delivered by a man who has never once run out of money in his life. Senator Bernie Sanders, explaining why his office could not endorse a candidate who lost a Wisconsin gubernatorial primary by fewer than 4,000 votes, offered the following: “We have limited resources.”

That’s it. That’s the sentence. No “strategic considerations.” No “broader map.” Just a statement of constraint, delivered by a man with a team, a phone, and, as far as anyone can tell, a pen.

The context: Democratic socialist Francesca Hong lost Wisconsin’s gubernatorial primary to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley by fewer than 4,000 votes — a margin so narrow it has already acquired its own mythology. Several high-profile progressives are blaming the Vermont senator for staying out of the race, on the theory that his endorsement alone “could have helped bring in badly needed resources.”

Which brings us back to the resources, because the math of an endorsement is not complicated: a name, a phone call, and roughly four minutes of a staffer’s afternoon. An anonymous progressive operative, speaking on the record of being anonymous, put it better than anyone: “What resources? You’re not cutting checks. Endorsing somebody raises the money.” That is the entire rebuttal, and it is correct, and it is also, in a way, not the point, because the point is that the senator’s office is now operating on a budget, and the budget is real, and the word for it is “limited.”

The most revealing moment of the whole episode came before the primary, when Sanders said on a podcast that he was “not that familiar” with the Wisconsin race — a statement that Cenk Uygur, co-founder of Young Turks and Justice Democrats, handled the way a friend handles a friend’s mistake: “I love Bernie, but that’s not true. Sorry, brother, but you have a giant team. Of course somebody on your team knows who’s running for governor in Wisconsin.” It is, in the history of progressive media, about as gentle as “your team knows who’s running for governor in Wisconsin” can get, and it is also the most accurate description of a Senate office available.

The other side of the story — and there is always an other side, usually in a basement in a different state — is Our Revolution, the group born from Sanders’ 2016 campaign, which posted a statement early Wednesday morning that the progressive ecosystem had “gatekeeping our own movement through the eyes of the establishment.” Sanders’ response, delivered with the timing of a man who has answered this question before: “Our Revolution is an organization I’ve not had any interaction with, any participation with … for I think nine years. They do what they want and they say what they want. They have nothing to do with me.” His own movement, disowned, nine years, in the middle of an election season.

And yet the senator’s mood, by his own account, is excellent. Citing the wins of candidates he did endorse — Rebecca Cooke in Wisconsin’s 3rd District, Matt Little in Minnesota’s crowded open seat, and the Minnesota Senate race — Sanders said, “Needless to say, I’m feeling really very good.” Which is to say: the endorsement economy is a zero-sum game, the senator has picked his horses, and the horses are, as of Tuesday night, running.

What I want to say, as the person whose job is to say what the readers are thinking, is this: “limited resources” is the most honest sentence in the building because it is, finally, a budget. A statement of constraint. A man doing math. The rest of us are still running on vibes, and the vibes are, as of Tuesday night, mixed. Nina Turner, a former Our Revolution leader who backed Hong, said the movement “is going to have to reckon with how we continue to win around certain personalities” — which is the polite version of “the personalities are the product, and the product has a shelf life.”

At press time, the senator’s office had confirmed that an “endorsement triage process” was “under review,” and Our Revolution had confirmed that the nine-year gap in communication was, in its words, “mutual.”