Analysis of the Presidential Election: Sanders, Trump and Clinton

Prior to the year 2016, we would have predicted a presidential race around this time to be uninteresting and not a lot of changes from the politicians we have seen in the past. What voters now call establishment politicians or politicians who are beholden to big money special interests, voters in the past would have just called them normal politicians. They would have normally embraced these politicians who pandered to their concerns most adequately. This political technique does not work in modern day politics. This is partly due to the fact of increasing technology, globalization, and social media. People just do not buy into political speak the way they used to. The Internet has provided a way to immediately expose politicians who lie. The mainstream media has provided narratives and horse race journalism, which still exists today, but as we have seen with the rise of Donald Trump, the media may not be relevant in certain regards. The media's attention and scrutiny of Trump's false statements and outrageous behavior may just be helping Trump. People don't trust the media as much as they used to.

Many blame the media for perpetuating the rise of Republican front runner Donald Trump, but they ignore the fact that the Republican establishment created Trump. Right wing media like Fox News and prominent conservative figures like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity have all played a role in assisting Trump. The birther movement, which started with Trump and the rise of the Tea Party in Congress all lead up to this moment in American politics. These figures may have done this inadvertently or on purpose. At this point, it's the unpredictability of Trump and the lack of historical examples that makes Trump's rise to power particularly worrisome.

On the Democratic side, we notice another divide between, once again establishment politicians and grassroots activists. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders do have profound differences. Sanders upset win in Michigan may prove a tide turning against Clinton. Sanders even received a larger share of African American support than he had in the past. Five Thirty Eight called Sanders' win: "Sanders's win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history." There are certain profound and amazing things happening in both political parties and I believe history will decide if these instances will have a profound affect on presidential politics and political parties in the future.

Clinton has the backing of the entire Democratic establishment and even some neocon Republicans may consider her for the general election if she were to go against Trump. Bernie Sanders has received the endorsement of former Bill Clinton Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich and former DNC vice chair Congressman Tulsi Gabbard. These endorsement may represent a particular divide among Democrats, who view Clinton as to tied into Wall Street or big money interests. Americans who see powerful lobbyists and wealthy campaign contributors as a problem in an American democratic society. Gabbard believes Clinton is too hawkish in her foreign policy and said Clinton has supported wars of interventionist regime change in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Reich has stated that Clinton is the best president for the political system we have now and Sanders is the best president to change the system for the betterment of getting money out of politics. It's understood that Barack Obama had a super PAC and raised money from Wall Street, but he was never criticized for that because he was working within the system. There was not an alternative politician who did not accept money from Wall Street until a democratic socialist Senator from Vermont came into the race.

The concept of citizen media has been prominent since the 2008 election. The news agency Motherjones received footage of Romney saying 47% of the country will not vote for him, which was seen as dismissive. It was attributed to him losing to Obama. In 2016, citizen journalism is even more prominent. A reporter from the news organization called the Intercept once approached Hillary Clinton on film and asked her why she won't release her Goldman Sachs transcripts. Clinton at first dismissed the question and that goes viral. At a Democratic debate, moderator Chuck Todd asks Clinton if she would release the transcripts and she says she will if everyone will release their transcripts as well. This incident does not look good for Clinton and it immediately backfires. At Democratic debates and town halls, Clinton is repeatedly asked about the transcripts and she gives the same non-answer. It adds to her high dishonesty and low trustworthiness ratings in regards to her FBI investigation and other issues. The issue was finally raised by Bernie Sanders himself, who now calls for Clinton to release her speeches as part of his stump speech.

Sanders rise is attributed to another populist Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren who criticizes the power that Wall Street has over Congress. She has also scrutinized Hillary Clinton by proclaiming she views powerful interest groups as her constituency. The current Democratic National Committee Chairwoman, Congresswoman Debbie Wassermann Schultz, has been criticized by other members of the Democratic Party for overturning the ban on lobbyists that Obama implemented in 2008 and also for her support of loan sharks. 

But in the grand scheme of things, Trump and Sanders resonate with voters who want someone in the White House that is an outsider and do not represent corporate donors. However, they are opposite in terms of how they want to accomplish their goals. Sanders was a congressman, mayor and now a senator. Trump was a reality television star and businessman and has no political experience. However, as we have seen with these two candidates both Sanders and Trump set the agenda for what the discussion is going to be at debates. They have both impacted the presidential race in different ways. If the general election were to be Trump versus Sanders then that would be something we have never seen in the history of American presidential elections.