Direct Democracy. Facebook, Twitter, and unmoderated comments.

Social media groups reveal direct unfiltered opinion. 

We can learn from it. 

Trigger warning: This post mentions Biden, Hillary, and Bernie

From a leftist site: Hard bargain.

In some arenas of life, crowds are presumed to be smarter than the individuals in it. 

Also, in economic theory, investment markets are presumed to be efficient. The "crowd" consisting of all investors creates the accurate price, as the theory goes. The crowd knows best.

In politics, it is different. 

The writers of the Constitution were afraid of the tyrannical impulses of democracy, so they created a Constitution that is deeply un-democratic. We elect representatives who are presumably wiser and cooler heads than the public that elected them, and they make the decision. It is the "republican form of government."

I read the chatter on social media. Unfiltered chatter creates a primary source document. It reveals the split within the political left.

Can he overcome not being Bernie Sanders?

Social media chatter is opinion democracy in pure form, unleashed because individuals operate in isolation. People don't get cues from body language or tone of spoken voice, so writers are incautious. People denounce one another. People pile on. The angriest and loudest voices dominate. People who disagree stay quiet out of fear or prudence. Facebook pile-ons show the chaos of pure democracy and also its authoritarian tendency. Bullies gang up together and enforce conformity. But it also reveals who can lead a coalition of revolt against the main tide of consensus politics.

Certain names trigger outrage. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are two of them. They are lightning rods. To some on the political left, they epitomize "corporate Democrats," establishment Democrats irrevocably tagged as sell-outs who made peace with the business establishment of America. Worse, they worked against Bernie in 2016.

Facebook comment

If either of them were to get traction in the 2020 race, or especially the nomination, they would fracture the left.

So would Bernie Sanders. His endorsement of Hillary in 2016 was perceived by many Democrats as insincere and weak, and his immediate reversion back to the Independent Socialist brand after the 2016 election signals that he, in fact, rejects Democrats.

So do many of his supporters.

"Regular" Democrats who focus on not losing elections misunderstand those voters to their left. Democrats think those progressives are allies. Many are not. They dislike Democrats because progressives aren't Democrats, and they resent being confused for them. They doubly resent Nader and Stein being blamed for the losses to Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016. They say Democrats lost on their own because they nominated unelectable people. Democrats did not earn their votes, they write, and they are not "owed" those votes to  anyone. They consider it presumptuous and offensive for Democrats to think they should compromise with some "lesser of two evils" argument.

It backfires badly when Democrats suggest "compromise." or "being reasonable."  It annoys progressives. They believe they are being reasonable.

Democrats should take no for an answer.

The fracture on the left may persist for another election. The solution is new blood, and nominating someone who was a non-combatant in the Nader-Gore-Bernie-Hillary battles. Someone young. 

But that may not happen. There will likely be a multitude of younger people hoping to catch fire in Iowa and New Hampshire, and they will divide the vote among themselves, thous elevating Biden and Sanders. We have seen this before. The anti-Trump vote was a sizable majority in 2016 but Trump had the plurality in a fractured race. 

Now it is the Democrats' turn. The pluralities may well go to the big names, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. This could work out badly.