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.
When this year's 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 Mr 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 Mr Sanders narrowing to single digits among Democrats. When the preferences of all voters are considered and Mrs Clinton and Mr Sanders are matched separately against the Republicans’ Donald Trump, a very different picture emerges.
The average of this month’s polls shows Mr Trump beating Mrs Clinton by slightly less than 1 point. The same average shows Mr Sanders beating Mr Trump by about 11 points. Polls in key battleground states show much the same – with Mrs Clinton and Mr Trump running neck-and-neck and Mr Sanders beating Mr Trump in every state.
Why has this happened? Several factors point the way.
Part of Mrs Clinton’s 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 public’s well-being in their decision-making. Given this setting, Mrs Clinton’s 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 Mr Sanders, the ultimate outsider, Mr 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 Mr Sanders because they see him as authentic and they trust him. Among voters under 45, Mr Sanders beats Mrs Clinton by a margin of two to one. And when all voters are asked who they trust more, Mr 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 Mr Sanders points out that the top 1 per cent in the US controls more of the nation’s wealth than the bottom 90 per cent – and when he notes that the American middle class controls a smaller percentage of the nation’s 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 Mr Sanders’s 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.
As the election enters its final round, it is clear that the Sanders phenomenon must be taken seriously. Despite the view of media pundits and the Democratic establishment that the contest is over – a form of voter suppression – and calls that Mr Sanders should withdraw from the race, he continues to demonstrate electoral strength. He has won two out of the last three and 12 out of the last 20 states.
At this point, Mr Sanders can legitimately claim the support of about half of the Democratic Party’s base. This cannot be dismissed. Nor can his observation that he outperforms Mrs Clinton with independents and fares better against the Republicans in national and battleground state polls.
Democrats would be making a mistake if they ignore both the meta issues of distrust of the establishment and the voters’ desire to have a candidate they can trust, as well as Mr Sanders’s far-reaching agenda for political and economic reform.
I believe that should he win in California, Mr Sanders can make a strong case urging the party's superdelegates to support his candidacy. It is this group – many of whom had endorsed Mrs Clinton before the election had even begun – that have made her margin over Mr Sanders appear to be insurmountable.
But even if Mr Sanders does not win, what he represents cannot be dismissed or reduced to any single issue, as many media reports attempted to do in the past week. What Mr Sanders represents and the far-reaching change in domestic and foreign policy he has advocated and that many voters have endorsed should not be ignored.
Responding to voters’ deeply felt needs, Mr Sanders has given birth to a progressive movement that, if understood, embraced and, most importantly, sustained, can bring revolutionary change to America.
Dr James Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute
On Twitter: @aaiusa
