Before Hillary Rodham Clinton had even announced her presidential bid on April 12, 2016, most Americans had no doubts in their minds that she would be the easy front runner for Democratic nominee. She was accomplished, experienced and had ideals that matched up with those of the Democratic Party. Most of the country felt it was only a matter of time before she would represent the party, until April 30, 2015, when Vermont senator Bernard “Bernie” Sanders announced his candidacy.

What would transpire over the next 15 months would show the divide that new ideals could bring to a group and provide a clear example of the left’s repeatedly self-sabotaging ways.

Just days after Clinton had announced her run for president, her favorability rating was at 48 percent despite the hit from the email scandal, and it showed general approval by members of the Democratic Party. She seemed to be off to a great start, but there was a factor her campaign lacked: enthusiasm. Focus groups came back showing that while Clinton had promised everything voters wanted, they were still not completely satisfied. In came Sanders, a borderline socialist with the campaign promises that sounded too good to be true (because they were), was 75 years old and had not done anything considerable in the eight years he was in the senate. This began a new installment in a cycle of liberals not being able to help themselves. Much of the far-left immediately disavowed Clinton, coming up with reasons she was corrupt, prejudiced and unfit to be president. They dug up statements of hers from decades before and called her out for the movements she had not been a part of — before they had even started. The far-left tried to portray Clinton in such a way that not supporting Sanders showed a moral deficiency. The 2016 presidential election was not the first time the left showed their colorful dysfunction.

During Al Gore’s 2000 campaign for president, he showed many parallels to Clinton.

They were both tried and trusted career politicians with realistic campaign promises that had the good of all in mind, and they were both people who were taken down by their party’s’ inability to wait for progress. Gore did not face a Sanders, but someone very similar: a Nader.

Ralph Nader was a member of the Green Party, and he had run two times before this instance, but that had not mattered very much to the political process until 2000. Nader and Sanders were also alike. Both were seen as far-left outsiders (though Nader was not in the party, he was still affiliated with liberal ideals), who were going to shake things up. Another thing they shared was neither of their campaign promises were even slightly realistic. Nader argued for policy changes that hadn’t even been considered by their current government, and he told his supporters he would have them completed soon after he took office. He also argued that voting for Gore is voting for the lesser of the two evils, much like Sanders referred to Clinton.

In the end, Nader played a large role in having Bush elected — a politician Nader considered the worse of the two evils. Subsequently, when Bush began to administer new policies, Nader and his supporters were the loudest to complain, much like the so-called “Bernie or Bust” folks have been towards the PEOTUS and his cabinet picks. Nader and Sanders both showed instances of the far-left being able to have everything they wanted but still looking towards people who suggested there was more.

In November 2016, Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison announced his bid for chair of the Democratic National Committee, backed by Sander's support. A former Sander's supporter himself, Ellison has new ideas on how to transform the party — ideas that align with Sanders’ unrealistic, wishful thinking campaign.

If Ellison is elected, the Democratic party is in for another drought of representation in the White House.