It wasn't a surprise that Bernie Sanders decided to run for president in 2016. For a long-shot candidate from his party's left flank, there may never have been a better time to run: With everyone assuming Hillary Clinton would be the nominee and only a couple of other politicians bothering to enter the race, he was almost guaranteed to get plenty of attention for his democratic-socialist vision of a more equitable society. Sanders was plenty used to having one foot on the inside and one on the outside of establishment politics, and the biggest political stage would be a perfect place to advocate for his ideas and place a capstone on his career.
But could he have anticipated what's happening now? Not many other people did, that's for sure. Sanders is now picking up about a quarter of the Democratic electorate in national polls, is close to Clinton in Iowa, and has led her in every poll in New Hampshire in the last month. He drew a crowd of 20,000 in Boston on Saturday; the only other candidate who can get that many people to come hear him talk is a guy who puts his name on the side of airplanes.
There's nothing fringe about Bernie Sanders's candidacy anymore. So what does that tell us about the Democratic electorate in 2015? If you "Feel the Bern," what exactly are you feeling? Let's look at a few possibilities:
Sanders voters just think he's right. This is the simplest explanation: There are a lot of liberals in the party, people who want a candidate who will advocate for things like single-payer health care and free college tuition, and who are attracted to Sanders's focus on economic inequality and the inherent corruption of a political system that runs on money from millionaires and billionaires.
Sanders voters don't like Hillary Clinton's policy stances. When you hear Sanders supporters talk about Clinton, they often mention things like her history of hawkishness and her closeness to Wall Street as reasons they don't support her. And it's true that through her husband's administration and her time in the Senate, she was considered more center-left than left. On the other hand, she's been staking out more liberal positions during this campaign on issues like immigration and workplace regulations. But a liberal still might say that she hasn't moved far enough.
Sanders voters don't like Hillary Clinton personally, or don't think she can win. This too assumes that a Sanders vote is essentially negative, driven mostly by a dislike for Clinton. It's unavoidable that feelings about Clinton will be part of every Democrat's calculation, since she's the axis around which the primary campaign revolves. This isn't true on the Republican side-you can support Marco Rubio no matter what you think of Jeb Bush or anybody else-but every Democrat making a choice will have thought long and hard about Clinton.
Sanders voters might genuinely dislike her (for reasons good or bad), or they might decide that even if they do like her, she comes with too much baggage, is too reviled by the media, or isn't a good enough candidate to win, and so they've decided to support Sanders. We could argue about how much merit those assessments have, but they aren't outside the realm of reason, even if Sanders comes with plenty of general election weaknesses himself.
Sanders voters are disillusioned with the Obama presidency. Remember how inspired and moved everyone was in 2008? It was a once-in-a-lifetime campaign, but it was followed by the often distasteful work of governing, with a defeat and a compromise for every victory. Even the victories feel tainted by all the unpleasantness surrounding them. When I say the words "Affordable Care Act," are you filled with joy knowing that a goal Democrats had fought to achieve for half a century finally came to pass, with millions of lives bettered as a result? Or do you think of all the nastiness, the lies, the lawsuits, the "death panels," the website rollout, and everything else that has accompanied this law from the moment we began debating it?
Sanders offers a return to the days of hope and change, an uncompromised vision that says that all the things you wish for could be made real after all. And the contrast with Clinton is clear here too: She'll tell you that doing the things she wants to do is going to be hard. You know how much Republicans hate her, just as much as they hate Obama, and a Clinton presidency would be mired in just as much partisan obstructionism as the Obama presidency was. In effect, she's saying, "My presidency is going to be a slog, but it'll be worth it." It's pragmatic and realistic, and it's a stark contrast to the place of ideological purity that Sanders occupies.
Sanders supporters are only with him temporarily. Remember those bumper stickers in 2004 that said, "Dated Dean, married Kerry"? If the pundits have been right all along and Clinton is the all-but-inevitable nominee, there's no danger in spending some time with Bernie at this stage of the race, then getting on board with Clinton later. In fact, an ideological-yet-practical liberal could see it as a wise strategic move: The more support Sanders has now, the more pressure Clinton will feel to incorporate his ideas into her platform, and the more likely it will be that those ideas find expression in her presidency. The fact that Sanders and Clinton have for the most part stuck to a kind of mutual non-aggression pact makes this much easier; if you end up with Clinton, you won't have watched your favorite candidate spend months attacking her, then wind up feeling like you betrayed him in some way.
Which of these is the right explanation for Bernie Sanders's remarkable success? They may all play a role, but there's no question his timing is perfect: Coming at the end of a presidency that liberals have complicated feelings about, with no other competitors on the left side the party, he makes for a stark contrast with the (still) presumed nominee. Perhaps we'll have to wait until someone wraps up the nomination to know for sure why Sanders did as well as he did-however well that turns out to be in the end.