Sanders may not win, but he must be heard
There is a Sanders
phenomenon in the United States right now. It is real and the
factors that have prompted its emergence need to be addressed and understood
James Zogby
When this years presidential primary began, many people dismissed the Democratic Party contest as a done deal. It was assumed that Hillary Clinton would be the inevitable nominee, with the primaries and caucuses being a bothersome but required pro forma affair that she would have to endure until she had accumulated enough delegates to be declared the nominee.
One year ago, Mrs Clinton was leading the rest of the Democratic field by between 50 and 60 points, with none of her opponents believed to be serious challengers especially the 74-year-old socialist senator from Vermont. Back then, support for Sanders came largely from a core group of progressive activists who were driving his campaign.
A year later much has changed, with the gap between Mrs Clinton and Sanders narrowing to single digits among Democrats. When the preferences of all voters are considered and Mrs Clinton and Sanders are matched separately against the Republicans Donald Trump, a very different picture emerges.
The average of this months polls shows Trump beating Mrs Clinton by slightly less than 1 point. The same average shows Sanders beating Trump by about 11 points. Polls in key battleground states show much the same with Mrs Clinton and Trump running neck-and-neck and Sanders beating Trump in every state.
Why has this happened? Several factors point the way.
Part of Mrs Clintons problem is that she is running for president in a year when voter distrust of, and even anger at, the political and economic establishments has come to define the national mood. Many voters do not believe that politicians and corporate leaders consider the publics well-being in their decision-making. Given this setting, Mrs Clintons claim of experience and her long-standing ties to Wall Street investors have become liabilities.
In the contest between Mrs Clinton, the ultimate insider, and Sanders, the ultimate outsider, Sanders has a decided edge.
Polls demonstrate that voters, especially the young and the growing number of those who declare no affiliation with either party, are drawn to Sanders because they see him as authentic and they trust him. Among voters under 45, Sanders beats Mrs Clinton by a margin of two to one. And when all voters are asked who they trust more, Sanders wins by three to one.
These two factors distrust of the establishment and the yearning for a leader who is authentic form the underpinnings of the Sanders phenomenon. The meat on the bones are the issues he has championed.
America is, without a doubt, a wealthy nation. The GDP and the performance of the stock market, despite occasional dips, suggest a healthy economy. But in spite of this, real incomes for the middle class have been stagnant for decades, leaving many Americans struggling to make ends meet.
When Sanders points out that the top 1 per cent in the US controls more of the nations wealth than the bottom 90 per cent and when he notes that the American middle class controls a smaller percentage of the nations wealth than the middle class in any other industrialised country that message resonates. As does his broader message of economic justice and a reordering of political/economic priorities.
While Sanderss calls for health care for all and tuition-free higher education and his proposal to pay for these programmes by imposing stiffer taxes on the wealthiest 1 per cent are dismissed as unworkable and socialist, they have been embraced by young and working-class voters who are hungry for change. And when he criticises the corrupting influence of big money in our politics, voters respond in agreement.
The writer is the president of the Arab American Institute
