Last night in Iowa, Bernie Sanders achieved what seemed impossible nine months ago. He overcame Hillary Clinton’s seemingly insurmountable lead and finished in a virtual tie. Something happened on her ‘way to the forum,’ so to speak. He derailed her expected coronation.
Last night, he said,
Iowa, thank you. Nine months ago, we came to this beautiful state. We had no political organization, we had no money, we had no name recognition, and we were taking on the most powerful political organization in the United States of America. And tonight, while the results are still not known, it looks like we are in a virtual tie.”
His remarkable achievement in Iowa is even more impressive when one considers that he is a social democrat with virtually no name recognition outside of New England. He financed his campaign with donations that averaged $27. By contrast Hillary Clinton is well known and well financed with a war chest consisting of millions of dollars contributed by wealthy individual donors and corporations.
Here’s the breakdown of who voted for the two candidates. The New Yorker is reporting,
The age gap between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters was huge. According to the entrance polls, which wrongly predicted a Clinton victory, Sanders got eighty-six per cent of the Democratic vote in the seventeen-to-twenty-four age group, eighty-one per cent in the twenty-five-to-twenty-nine group, and sixty-five per cent in the thirty-to-thirty-nine age group. Clinton, by contrast, was largely reliant on the middle-aged and the elderly. Among forty-something voters, she won by five percentage points. Among the over-fifties, she won by more than twenty per cent.
I have been saying for a long time that Bernie Sanders is the only candidate for president from either party who has identified and proposed solutions for the most serious problems that we face. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is literally the establishment candidate who wants to stay the course that has failed to improve the lot of the vanishing middle class. Her foreign policy views are neoconservative and she supports the reprehensible exploitation of natural and human resources by U.S. corporations. Regrettably, she also supports regime change as a means to protect the financial interests of those corporations. In practice, regime change is antidemocratic because it involves destabilizing democratically elected reform-minded governments and replacing them with military dictatorships. For example, think of Honduras which has turned into the murder capitol of Central America after she supported the military coup that replaced the elected civilian government and commenced a war against reform-minded people protesting the loss of their democracy while seeking to protect human rights.
She also supports the policy best described by the expression, “Don’t sacrifice the good for the perfect.” Her willingness to settle for half-a-loaf when policies and priorities need to change dramatically to protect the middle class and rebuild the economy is discouraging. Her cautious approach does not inspire and that is why her support comes from older people.
His attention is on the future. Her attention is on the past.
I endorsed Bernie Sanders long ago and I hope you will vote for him too.