The DNC's Dangerous Dice Game

With the convention drawing ever nearer, the DNC is playing a very risky game. Clinton is the seeming shoo-in for the democratic nomination, but this begs the question: is her candidacy really viable in the general election?

The Democratic party has been slowly and steadily disenfranchising voters throughout the primary cycle. There are myriad reasons for this, but it all comes down to blatant bias towards Clinton. Not only did superdelegates pledge to Clinton before the primary cycle even began, but there’s been a constant misrepresentation of how delegates are allocated. The mainstream media has all along been saying that Bernie was massively behind when superdelegates don’t even matter until the convention. It got so bad that the DNC publicly asked the media to not include superdelegates in their counts, a request that generally went unheeded.

The media narrative towards Sanders has been overwhelmingly negative when he’s even mentioned at all, demonstrating obvious disposition towards Clinton. When, for example, Bernie said “excuse me, I’m talking”, it was spun as sexism, despite the fact that Clinton had done the same on numerous occasions and that Sanders had been routinely cut off and interrupted when given a chance to speak at debates while Clinton was often allowed to go off on tangents full of rhetoric and political circle-running. Given the large donations contributed to the Clinton campaign and the Clinton foundation by the executives at major media companies, it seems certainly to be no accident.

After all, why would the rich not want Clinton? Her finance plans aren’t terribly hard on them, and she’s been shown time and time again historically to be very favorable towards the upper classes, stretching all the way back to Clintonomics, the Democratic party’s coöpting of Reaganomics, where she was one of President Clinton’s principal advisors.

But the focus isn’t on the wrong that the Democratic party has done, nor is it on who Clinton is or what she stands for.

What it comes down to is the reality of who will fare better in the general election.

Clinton has one of the lowest favorability ratings of any incumbent nominee. The latest polling has her averaging a spread of almost -15 favorability, where Sanders has around +7 favorability.

Looking at polls, not only does Clinton have a lower favorability rating than Sanders, but she has a significantly lower margin of victory against Trump than Sanders.

Apologists for Clinton say that this is due to the fact that Sanders hasn’t been attacked nearly as much as Clinton has, but this is untrue. Every debate, every media interview, and every Republican candidate has exposed Sanders to a crash course in surviving an immense amount of red-baiting and scare tactics. The Republican nominees started a nasty misrepresentation about Sanders regarding a proposed 90% tax, which was an utter falsehood. Clinton herself even heavily defamed Sanders, lying about his past presence for issues she supposedly supported such as healthcare reform, and going as far as to say that he wasn’t a “real Democrat”. 

Sanders has been the subject of extremely heavy scrutiny this campaign, being counted out from the start by every member of either party. Despite this, his performance in national polls displays a constant upward trend.

But this isn’t about party lines or allegiances, nor is it about polls. It’s about this: at the end of the day, the DNC wants to win the general election.

The most dangerous thing they could do is put forth the candidate who represents establishment politics better than anybody else at a time of heavy disillusionment with the political establishment.

The most dangerous thing they could do is put forth the candidate who has an extremely hard time keeping Democratic voters, let alone gaining independent voters — the largest voting camp in America.

To go further with this, Bernie achieved something that Hillary has failed at majorly: generating enthusiasm. Whether you agree with his character and principles or not, you can’t deny that Bernie has led to an absolute surge in new voter registration, and the very essence of his movement — political revolution — means that a Bernie presidency leads inevitably to a Democratic congress and a ton of enthusiasm among young voters. Hillary, on the other hand, may secure the presidency, but she’d be unable to accrue the enthusiasm Bernie has. People simply don’t like her enough.

The most dangerous thing they could do is ignore the very real Bernie or Bust movement, where people sick of the political climate vow to vote either for Bernie or not at all. It’s a very real possibility that members of the Bernie or Bust movement are upset enough to form a new splinter party and take a chunk of independent voters, spoiling Clinton in the general, or that their votes will go to Stein or Trump.

So with all of these variables in mind, what will the DNC’s choice ultimately be? So far, it seems that they are so heavily entrenched in the politics of money that they’ve run a crooked campaign against Sanders and considering recent affairs such as the shady New York and Arizona primaries and the Nevada caucus affair, seem to still be unyielding. But the reality is that a bid for Clinton might mean four to eight years under Republican rule — and the demise of the Democratic party.

Bernie, on the other hand, would lead to a new era for the Democratic Party. Remember the FDR platform? People called it populist, but it would lead to so much prosperity and popular support that the Democrats reigned supreme for another several elections. Bernie’s platform represents the namesake democracy.

So the DNC has an important choice to make: profit, or prosperity?


In solidarity,

Kolt Day

last week's column • next week's column


Be the first to comment