Pre-Debate Commentary (Hillary vs. Bernie)

Budweiser just agreed to buy Miller for $104 billion. Just think of all that spare cash, just laying around with nothing better to do than buy out a competitor and layoff workers in the process. Last year corporations spent $1 trillion in "mergers and acquisitions" and another $1 trillion in stock buy backs — all while dodging taxes, under-paying workers and hoarding cash in offshore banks.

But the politicians say these corporations need more tax breaks to incentivize more investment — to produce more "growth", create jobs and raise wages. For the past 35 years our entrenched politicians (Republicans and Democrats, Clintons and Bushes) have been spoon-feeding us the same old crap, and leaving us sucking on hot air today.

Now the American people want something different, but both political party machines are resisting any and all change — and have only (as usual) been paying us lip service instead. Moderate Democrats and Moderate Republicans have both been acting like Progressive Populists. What frauds they are!

The Clinton campaign has bought and aired nearly 5,500 TV ads this year in the early presidential caucus and primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire — and accounts for nearly one in four of ALL TV ads aired so far during the 2016 presidential race.

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has yet to air a single TV ad, but still has been consistently drawing the biggest crowds to campaign events. Meanwhile, neither has Donald Trump had to spend any money on campaign TV ads, because his celebrity status gets him a lot of free media time. But everybody also knows Hillary Clinton, more so than they know Bernie Sanders, but yet, Bernie still draws the biggest crowds.

But we have media pundits and politicians trying to convince us that crowds don't matter, only votes do. But if a candidate is nominated by their party, how can voters vote for their preferred candidate? Again, as usual, just as it's been for decades, voters are stuck voting for the "lesser of two evils". People who prefer Bernie may be forced to vote for Hillary to keep a Republican from being president — and visa versa for Republican voters — such as those who may prefer Donald Trump, but might vote for Jeb Bush instead if he's nominated, just to keep Hillary from being the next president.

Among Democrats, according to Zignal Labs, Hillary Clinton is a more polarizing figure than the other Democratic candidates, particularly on social media, where strong criticism from conservative sites and tweeters makes up a large portion of the chatter about her candidacy.

Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, is buoyed by liberal/progressive net-roots support and garnering much more enthusiasm and excitement than Hillary — so much in fact, that Hillary started taking acting lessons to make herself more likeable.

The chart below from Zignal Labs tracks the sentiment of all Twitter mentions by state over the last week. The blue states are states where Sanders has a higher positive sentiment. Red states are ones where Clinton’s sentiment is higher. (The darker blue is where a the wider gap exists between the two, which favors Sanders.)

But Hillary Clinton is getting most of the endorsements from sitting Democratic members of Congress: Over 100 members so far — and only two for Bernie. The electoral process allows delegates and supper-delegates to mostly favor Hillary as the Democratic nominee, despite whether or not Bernie has the overwhelming popular vote. The Democratic Party Machine (DNC) clearly favors Hillary over Bernie.

This is how the two-party political system works in the U.S. — to keep themselves in power — maintaining the status quo of a fake democracy.

Anybody who closely follows politics also knows that the mainstream media also favors Hillary over Bernie. The Washington Post newsletter says: "While Sanders rivals Clinton’s traffic on Twitter, the former Secretary of State continues to dominate traditional media, particularly broadcast television, where Sanders has had a hard time breaking through. That suggests that tomorrow might be the first time that many Americans will actually see Sanders in action."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (the DNC chairperson) has incensed progressive Democrats by allegedly uninviting her own vice chair (Tulsi Gabbard) after she called for more debates. Most people believe the debates were limited to six to favor Hillary — and that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is widely perceived as pro-Hillary. Of course, to maintain some semblance of credibility, the DNC has publicly denied any of this (Bernie Sanders' campaign has evidently offered Tulsi Gabbard a ticket to the debate anyway.)

Many of the more informed Americans rightfully suspect that the Democratic debates will only be a big "dog-and-pony" show for the masses (and advertising for the media), because despite who the majority believe fairs better during the debates, they will have no effect whatsoever on who is eventually chosen to be the Democratic nominee ... and that will be the former First Lady, Bill Clinton's wife.

Something similar may happen on the Republican side, and that's why Donald Trump once said he would run as an Independent if he wasn't treated fairly by the Republican Party Machine. Maybe Bernie Sanders should run as an Independent as well.

Personally (IMHO), I think that if Bernie ran as an Independent, by splitting the votes, it might encourage more people (who might otherwise vote for Hillary Clinton), to change their vote for Bernie instead, for fear of the Republicans winning the general election. That's why there are those inside the Democratic Party Machine who want to see Joe Biden enter the race, because Bernie may have a better chance of beating the GOP nominee than Hillary would. Also, Independents (including some who are Republican-leaning) would be more prone to vote for Bernie, because they wouldn't have to register as a Democrat to vote for him.

Of course, we can expect the Democratic Party Machine (maybe more so than the Republicans) to use the term "socialist" in an attempt to scare voters away from Bernie. But I do find it odd that, despite having a huge trust issue with Hillary ("thought to be a liar", etc.), many voters would still vote for her. It's so typical that many ill-informed and/or mis-informed voters (thanks in part to the mainstream media) will continue to vote against their own best interests — and will either vote for Hillary or a Republican. But again, that's just my humble opinion ;)

The Social Party USA (SPUSA) is not endorsing Senator Bernie Sanders. While Senator Bernie Sanders claims to be a "democratic socialist" (of the type we see in the democracies of Western Europe), as an "Independent", Bernie is a really a "Progressive" (just like FDR was). Bernie Sanders caucuses with "Progressives" — and something that even real socialists acknowledge:

Sanders shared a newly styled “progressive” mantle with [Senator Elizabeth] Warren, and together they became household names sounding a clarion call for the comeuppance of the “1 percent.” From there, a new populism centered around new “progressive” faces began to grow out of a community of left-leaning liberals and post-Occupy adherents ... When socialists support the trendy, progressive faces of liberalism, they not only contravene the principles of socialism itself, but also reinvigorate a position that has historically hurt and bifurcated parties like the SPUSA. And let’s make one more thing clear from the start: Despite any claims otherwise, Bernie Sanders is not a democratic socialist."

The Socialist Party USA will hold their 2015 National Convention on October 16-18, 2015 in Milwaukee, WI. (Their websites are here and here). Bernie Sanders won't be there. He'll be at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia in July 2016.