On Monday, the U.S. begins the second stage of the election campaign – the primaries, where supporters of the two parties will vote for candidates for nomination for the presidency. Yesterday President Obama met at the White house with Senator Bernie Sanders, who grew up in unexpectedly strong rival Hillary Clinton among Democrats. So serious that there is a chance that on 8 November, Americans will choose between trump and Sanders.
On Wednesday, Barack Obama held a 45-minute conversation with Senator Bernie Sanders. After leaving the White house, 74-year-old Senator from Vermont said the President promised not to support any of the participants in the primaries.
“It may be a configuration in which 8 November, Americans will have to choose between the two billionaires and a socialist”
“I know I discussed an interview with “Politico” in which Obama was allegedly tilted the scale in favor of former Secretary of state Clinton. I don’t believe it. I believe that he and the Vice President trying to be fair and impartial in this process, and I think they will both behave in the future,” said Sanders. But White house press Secretary said that Obama believes that race is suddenly thrust Sanders vs. Clinton benefit from Democrats.
An interview with Obama, which mentioned the Sanders, came out on Monday, and the President refused to directly support one of the two democratic candidates, saying that it is most important to the White house to be replaced by the same party. While Obama praised Clinton, noting that she is able to govern the country beginning with the first day: “she Has more experience than any other person ever claimed on this chair, being the Vice-President”. His words about what he wants in politics more women are also regarded as indirect support for the former first lady. But at the same time Obama noted the weaknesses Clinton, for example, the style of her performances and what she is compared to a novice (American scene) Bernie Sanders:
“Bernie is in the advantageous position of the candidate whose victory was considered unlikely, and therefore can say whatever he wants. And in the position Clinton as the leading candidate there are both advantages and disadvantages. People will always look at new and unprecedented. This is to her disadvantage”.
While Obama has called Sanders a person with strong principles, and against the “experienced” Clinton, it seems to be a discreet feature. However, there is another place in the interview where Obama says, as he fought for victory in Iowa in 2008, promising the voters “hope and change” (and then he unexpectedly won in this state, at Clinton, the former originally a favorite of the campaign, and then won at the elections). Obama added that this slogan is relevant today:
“I’m willing to bet that the candidate who carries hope, will be the one in the long term will reach the American people”.Politicians aspiring to the post of President of the United States (infographic)
And these words certainly cannot be evaluated as a characteristic Clinton – she is not associated with the hope for change, unlike radical Sanders, who enjoys the support of young people.
So although Obama continues to give back to the clan of the Clintons, especially because just two days before that, Hillary herself has published an article “What does it mean for me the legacy of Barack Obama” in which first stated that her first term would be the third term of the current President, has assumed all the pros and cons of such preemnichestva, he still prefers not to associate himself publicly support his former Secretary of state. Especially on the eve of the primaries, Sanders – by the way, quietly criticizing Obama, for example, for lack of fight against wall Street – might start with a win.
Indeed, in recent days, polls show that two candidates have the same rank in this state – in the region of 46 per cent. Although in the national standings Clinton still far ahead of Sanders (about 15 percent), the propaganda value of the first primaries is very large. And given that, following Iowa, new Hampshire, where voting will be held February 9, Sanders is already almost guaranteed to win (he has the advantage of 15 percent), the beginning of the primaries will create a favourable environment for the Senator’s psychological climate and can lead to the growth of his popularity. But to win the nomination and from Democrats Sanders need serious reputational loss Clinton because he is so atypical candidate that the background fades even trump.
Sanders is too much of what was considered to be in principle unacceptable to the American people – primarily the fact that he’s a socialist (but in the States it’s practically synonymous with “Communist”, that is the enemy of American freedoms and the state) and almost unbelieving (in America had officially unbelievers presidents). Against this background, his Jewish origin (and also the critical remarks of Israel’s policy, which does not allow itself no “respectable” American politicians), advanced age (the oldest U.S. President was Ronald Reagan, who, at the time the election was 69 years) and the fact that he is the only one independent out of a hundred senators, not even impressive.
And while on the coasts and among the white population of the views of Sanders are not a hindrance, in the South and among, for example, African Americans (who in the majority for Democrats) support it less than Clinton. However, the course of the current campaign breaks the mass of seemingly immutable rules, including the fact that Sanders has collected large funds for the campaign, not resorting to services of “big money”, and that is worrying the American establishment, divided into Republican and democratic sectors.
American elections – and it shows, and the struggle of different groups of elites, but in this campaign everything went wrong. Is predictable and very cynical struggle between two dynasties, the bushes and Clintons, we are seeing an increase antielite sentiment, which has led to the actual crisis of the two ruling parties (both the ruling party is just Democrats in the White house and Republicans in Congress). Although technically the fight is between candidates from the elephants and the donkeys, three of the four remaining real contenders for the White house represent a major exception to the rule. It is not the children of the “Washington machine” (the so-called spike ruling, Federal officials, congressmen, lobbyists, corporations and wall Street), and frankly unpleasant for her people.
And if Senator Ted Cruz is and although initially antielite, but already entrenched in the Republican party movement “dummies” (conservatives-libertarians, proponents of a return to “traditional American values”) and even therefore may be considered as partly inscribed in the system of politician, Sanders, like trump, is a real nightmare for the elite. And if trump is not satisfied with her in the first place not their views and slogans, independence and unpredictability elite do not like to deal with independent people who not only do not owe them their career or do not belong to them according to their origin, but also themselves quite seriously consider themselves independent, Sanders is not suitable even for ideological reasons.
It was OK when both of them considered just how the show – in the end, had at least someone to portray the struggle with Clinton Democrats, and trump was seen as a happy clown and a completely different situation is where two independent (and neither trump nor the Sanders do not belong to the parties) will have real chances to enter the White house.
It is clear that the victory for trump and even Sanders would neither jeopardize the status of the establishment, nor the very Foundation of American bipartisan political system – first, they eventually agree, and secondly, even thinking about yourself is almost nothing the President can do without Congress – but it will be a serious challenge to the “Washington machine”. Demonstrate the program failed because the authorities will be able to reach people not just did not suit the authorities haves (or rather – not a nominee of any influential part of it), but that they should not be.
Considering that to stop the nomination of trump’s for the Republican nomination is almost impossible (his winning streak starts with a win in the Caucuses in Iowa and primaries in new Hampshire), the only establishment candidate remains Hillary Clinton. But it has two problems – around her, naturally, are not able to unite the elites of both parties, and she begins to lose the voters ‘ support.
And this happens despite the fact that Clinton is shifting more and more to the left – follow Bernie Sanders, who actually sets the tone for the campaign (it is, of course, at least on foreign policy). Uncertainty in the ability of Clinton to beat the Republicans first brought to what was thought to be nominated Vice-President Biden, but decided not to, and a couple of weeks ago, praised Sanders, adding that he “never believed that Hillary is doomed to victory.”
And recently there were leaks about the possibility of nominating another prominent representative of the elite (and former Republican, and a Democrat, and unaffiliated), and from the real “masters of America” – former new York city mayor Michael Bloomberg (the eighth place among the richest people in the USA). People at that level had not considered it necessary to work in the White house, perhaps the only exception is the brief Vice presidency of Nelson Rockefeller in the mid-70s, but it was during the Watergate crisis, when the real elite picked out from the White house much about himself imagines of President Nixon.
So far, Bloomberg examines the situation: although this is a nomination as an independent candidate, it is clear that the billionaire is concerned about the failure of the “party work”, that is, the possibility that 8 November, Americans will choose between trump and Sanders. It’s no secret that Bloomberg disgruntled Clinton, that is not believe in her chances to win Sanders first, and then trump.
Clinton has already responded to the talk about Bloomberg, trying to imagine that her life is under control:
“As far as I understood from his words, if I’m not nominated by the party, he might think about his nomination. Well, I’m going to spare him and get the nomination, so he won’t have to do that.”
When Sanders expressed confidence in his victory over Clinton, but also on their age and as the antithesis of Bloomberg, if he will be nominated as an independent candidate:
“In my opinion, do not have to look like American democracy, it should not be competition between the billionaires. If this happens, I believe that we will win”.
That is, given that the nomination trump more than likely, if Sanders is suddenly going to win the nomination from the Democrats and Bloomberg will be nominated as an independent candidate, it may be a configuration in which the Americans really have to choose between the two billionaires and a socialist, or when viewed from another angle, between two sistemdeki, supporters of big changes and one “seasoned business Executive” from among the co-owners of the system. And party affiliation will not have crucial importance.
Given the considerable age of all candidates even if Clinton still manages to reach the final, election-she will be 69, but she’s younger than the others – election-2016 risk be the beginning of the open phase of the crisis the “Washington machine”, which resulted in all four years of the next presidency, it will shake. So whoever wins this year – trump, Clinton or even the socialist Sanders is an even harder test awaits the system in four years. So even amazing surprises 2016 may seem only a dress rehearsal for battles 2020.Related posts: