Ovi -
we cover every issue
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Join Ovi in Facebook
Ovi Language
Michael R. Czinkota: As I See It...
Stop violence against women
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Stop human trafficking
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
Why Bernie Sanders should have Been the Next US President
by Dr. Emanuel Paparella
2016-06-08 09:23:43
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon


Both in the US and abroad, but especially abroad, there is a cliché making the rounds that goes like this: Bernie Sanders would make a good president, and he is certainly preferable to a Donald Trump, but he does not have a chance at winning the election. That kind of assessment can only be imputed at lack of attention to the latest polls and the details of American history. Let me explain.

In the first place it needs to be pointed out that, based on ideological preferences, taken as early as 2011 (and remember that ideology changes very slow) Sanders surprised many with his upside start in the presidential context. Not only that, but Sanders, according to the latest polls, would be able to beat any republican candidate the Republican may field after the nomination. The only other potential candidate that may accomplish the same is senator Elisabeth Warren, but, as per the latest news, is not entering the race; that leave Sanders as the only progressive candidate running in the democratic primaries. That may be the key to the conundrum.


The above mentioned ideological poll of 2011 showed that when it came to ideological orientation the highest net-favorable ratio of positive to negative was “Progressive” with a 67%/22% ratio. The second highest was “Conservative” with a 62%/30 ratio. Sanders is perhaps the leading progressive in the Senate and therefore represents the most widely shared ideology.  Should he win the Democratic nomination, the nation will be in for its first clear ideological choice since 1932 in a two-major-Party contest between a progressive Democrat versus a conservative Republican. At that time it was Franklyn Roosevelt vs Herbert Hoover. FDR won. It was almost inevitable; the Republicans had to overcome the weight of the economic crash of 1929, which they could not, despite the fact that Hoover was a businessman and proud of the fact. That was the first time around.

The second time around, came with the second business man president, George W. Bush who presented the nation with the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 plus a global recession in 2007-8. Two unjustified catastrophic events in every way imaginable. No candidate sitting on the fence regarding those events stands much of a chance of winning the Presidency, especially if her/his chief opponent was clearly opposed to them. Sanders for one was so opposed in words and actions to the invasion of Iraq and actually voted against authorizing the invasion. Despite the general dumbing-down which has produced the phenomenon of Trump (the Frankenstein monster created by the Tea Party wing of the Republican party), most Americans are not that stupid as  to think that it was not a rigged deal from the outset; that there was any excuse whatsoever for Bush’s choice to fake evidence and then to invade Iraq on the basis of it.

Then, as hinted above, there is the other catastrophe which in part was continued by the president who followed George Bush, Barack Obama: the Wall Street and non-prosecution of the mega-bankers who cheated their ways to ‘AAA’ MBS-creating-&-marketing mega-bank fortunes. The rationalization was and continues to be that they were too big to allow them to fail. Sanders has always been against that pro-Wall-Street, anti-Main-Street, policy, too — both in words and in deeds. He was consistently correct on both of the big issues of recent U.S. history — both of the issues that have depleted America’s future for the benefit of today’s super-rich.

On 15 February 2011, after Obama had been in office already two years continuing the bailouts, Rassmussen Reports bannered their poll, “57% Still Believe Bailouts Were Bad for US,” and also reported, “68% say bank bailout money went to those who caused meltdown.” Those overwhelming public views against the bailouts have also been not only Sanders’ own views throughout the period, but they’ve consistently been Sanders’s votes in the U.S. Senate. Sanders would be in a perfect position to beat any Republican nominee, including Trump who would not dream of going against the interests of the super-rich, a class of which he is very much part of.


Those are the reasons why Bernie Sanders would beat any Republican nominee they field against him, should he manage to win the Democratic nomination. That remains a possibility, if not a probability. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, remains a weak candidate despite her impressive resume. The issue of trustworthiness and her Wall Street connections and financial backers. Her evasions concerning her e-mails while Secretary of State continues to dog her even after ten months after the beginning of the race. The jury is still out on the matter; the FBI which is investigating, is in the business of investigating alleged crimes, not in security reviews, as Clinton would like people to believe. At this moment it appears that too many Democrats (especially the millennial, who are 80% in favor of Bernie Sanders) will avoid voting in the final general-election contest, or else will protest-vote for some third-party nominee.

By contrast, if Sanders is the Democratic nominee, then voter-turnout on Election Day on the Democratic line will be enormous. That in turn will determine which of the two Parties will control both the Senate and especially the House (where everybody is up for election every two years). Were Clinton win the nomination and the election, she would then be dealing in 2017 with a strongly Republican Congress, because of 2016’s resulting depressed Democratic voter-turnout. But if Sanders is the nominee, then not only will he win, but he will possibly be dealing with a Democratic Congress in 2017. It remains to be seen how wise will the final democratic verdict of the American people be in November 2016. Five months is a short time in politics.


Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Get it off your chest
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2016-06-08 11:28:34
P.S. Despite the latest developments which militate against Sanders, what the pundits who continue to say that he does not have a chance seem to have forgotten is that the FBI is presently conducting an investigation into Clinton's private e-mail used for government business and its connection to the Clinton foundation. If the FBI returns an indictment on the matter, even if it only negligence, the pundits will have to revise their assessment and say "perhaps Bernie Sanders may still be president of the US and indeed he has the best chance of defeating the unstoppable Frankenstein monster created by the Republican party and ready to devour its own maker... " Time will tell.

Mirella Ionta2016-06-09 00:59:03
Sanders is, indeed, the only qualified candidate for U.S. Presidency. Hilary Clinton, along with her husband, is a career criminal. I was recently watching a video of her and all she does is flip-flop on every social-political issue and all she can do is lie through her teeth for 70 minutes straight without taking a water break. She just says whatever she thinks people would like to hear. Her speeches do not sound like potential presidential speeches. They sound more like the self-glorifying presentation of a person who is trying to land a job during a job interview.
"I" did this and "I did that" and then "I," "I," "I". Everything is "Me, Myself, and I" during her speeches as though she is trying to win over a job by exposing her career resume.

Regarding Donald Trump, he is not coherent and mentally stable enough to win votes. I really think Donald Trump would have had a better chance of winning the US presidency 30 years ago, when he was still married to Ivana. I saw an interview back then with him on Oprah Winfrey and he was way more coherent than he is now. He would actually finish his sentences and he would not jump from idea to idea, making no link between two ideas as he does now. That swagger and arrogance of his worked out well for him in his youth. But it is too late for him now to use them to his advantage. I just see him as a bitter buffoon with a weird comb-over haircut and orange-tanned skin who cannot be taken seriously.

© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi