The Bernie Sanders Revolution

berniesanders1Bernie Sanders is the junior US Senator from Vermont.  He’s a member of the Democrat Party and an avowed socialist.  He’s a balding, white-haired gentleman and 74 years old.  He’s nobody’s idea of a left-wing, radical revolutionary.
When Senator Sanders announced his candidacy for the Democrat nomination for President last May, it seemed to be a fool’s errand.   Hillary Clinton seemed virtually unstoppable.

My first reaction to his candidacy was, “Awww–isn’t that cute?  An elderly, white-haired socialist is running for President.  Gee, it’s really true; anyone can grow up to run for President in the USA.  Is this a great country, or what?”

Of course, I didn’t believe Bernie had a chance in heck of winning the Democrat nomination or even raising any funds.  I kind of expected him to campaign from his walker, make a brave show of it, take a nap and quickly fade from the campaign.

I was wrong.

Bernie Sanders and his bid for the presidency are for real.

He wasn’t intimidated by Hillary.  He didn’t fade, lose heart or get caught dozing.  Remarkably, inconceivably, he began to close the gap in the polls between himself and Hillary.  In some polls he began to beat Hillary.

And his campaign’s success wasn’t just the result of support from some college kids having fun.  Bernie’s support is widespread.

Bernie’s supporters have not only voted for him in the polls–they’ve also contributed so many small donations (average of $30 each) to Bernie’s campaign that he’s raised almost as much money as Hillary’s $26 million.

Hillary received most of her money from PACs, the wealthy elite, and fundraisers organized by various “big shots”.

Bernie’s not taking money from PACs or the wealthy elite.  His contributions are all coming from the “little people”.

By taking contributions only from “little guys,” Bernie demonstrates a level of integrity and commitment to “de common folk” that no other politician can match.  What little I’ve heard about Bernie indicates that, despite being a politician, he may actually be an honest man.  Evidence of a candidate being honest and having integrity, has to attract some voters.

While Hillary holds “intimate meetings” with a few dozen people in road side diners, Bernie Sanders is holding rallies that draw over 20,000 screaming, cheering fans and supporters.

If you judge by the size of his rallies, Bernie Sanders may be the most popular candidate in the presidential race.


•  I have to admit that I’ve been surprised, amazed, and even befuddled, by his success.

I have to suppose that Hillary must be shocked, astonished and even a little terrified, by Bernie’s success.  Who could imagine that Hillary Clinton could be beaten by some socialist who was seven years older than she is?

Something incomprehensible seemed to be happening in American politics:  an elderly, avowed socialist was doing well in the A.D. 2016 presidential primaries.

It seemed impossible


•  I couldn’t wrap my mind around the Sanders “phenomenon” until a few days ago when I saw an article by Michael Snyder entitled, “Right Now There Are 102.6 Million Working Age Americans That Do Not Have A Job”.

In that article Mr. Snyder observes:


“According to the Obama administration, there are currently 7.9 million Americans that are ‘officially unemployed’ and another 94.7 million working age Americans that are ‘not in the labor force’.  That gives us a grand total of 102.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now.

“That is not an economic recovery – that is an economic depression of an almost unbelievable magnitude.”


Yes, yes, yes . . . 102.6 million working age Americans without jobs is an “economic depression of an almost unbelievable magnitude”.  Yes, I get that.  We’re now in deep economic do-do.

But the real implication of 103 million unemployed Americans goes far beyond whether we are or aren’t in an “economic depression of almost unbelievable magnitude”.  103 million unemployed imply that we may be on the verge of a political revolution of “an almost unbelievable magnitude”.

103 million unemployed equals nearly one-third of the total American population.  Subtract America’s 75 million children (who aren’t eligible to vote) from the overall population of 320 million, and we have a remainder of 245 million eligible voters–roughly half of which voted in the A.D. 2012 presidential election.

How many people voted Republican in the last presidential election?  61 million.

How many people voted Democrat66 million.

If the number of unemployed Americans is currently about 103 million, that’s almost 70% more than the total number of votes received by Mitt Romney (remember him?) in A.D. 2012.

Who do you suppose the vast majority of those 103 million unemployed will vote for in A.D. 2016?

Will they vote for Donald Trump–who is entertaining and inspiring with promises of a “return to greatness” but, otherwise, has nothing to offer the poor and currently unemployed?

I don’t think so.

What about voting for some other Republican who has nothing for the poor/unemployed other than the “trickle-down theory” where, first, government gives money to the rich and when they spend it, some of it will “trickle-down” to the middle class and poor.?  The trickle-down theory is stupid.  The rich already have money, lots of it, and virtually none of it is trickling down to the poor.  Why would anyone suppose that by giving even more money to the rich, any significant portion of that new money would “trickle down” to the poor?

I don’t think “trickle down” works and I doubt that the 103 million without jobs agree with me.

Will the 103 million unemployed vote for Hillary Clinton or some other Democrats who are bought and paid for by the same oligarchs who’ve bought and paid for most Republican candidates?

Not if there’s a better alternative.

Or, will that 103 million unemployed vote for the socialist, Bernie Sanders, who promises to tax the rich and give it to the poor?

This answer to these questions is a no-brainer.

The 103 million unemployed are going to vote for the man who promises to put a chicken in every pot.  They’re going to vote for a modern Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a newer New Deal.

They’re going to vote for Bernie Sanders.

They’re going to support Sanders passionately and financially.

And, that’s why Bernie is (almost) out-polling Hillary.

That’s why Bernie is attracting enough small financial contributions from hundreds of thousands (soon millions) of “little guys” to rival the campaign contributions from “big guys” to Hillary.

That’s why Bernie is drawing crowds in excess of 20,000 more than a year before the next election.

(How many other candidates for President in any previous election who could draw a crowd of over 20,000 more than a year before the election?  I can’t.  Ohh, there may have an incumbent President running for his second (Ronald Reagan) or third (FDR) term of office who was so well-liked that he could draw 20,000 people to a rally over a year before the next election.  But, when thinking about “rank and file” presidential candidates who largely unknown to the American people, who has ever before attracted 20,000 supporters 13 months before the next election?  Other than Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, I can’t think of anyone else.)

Can you name any candidate, other than Bernie Sanders, who has anything substantial to promise the 103 million unemployed?  I can’t.

Can you name any significant voting bloc who has more reason to support any candidate more passionately than the 103 million unemployed have to support Bernie Sanders?  I can’t.

Can you name any other voting bloc that can be motivated by rank-and-file Democrat or Republican candidates that’s even half as large as the 103 million unemployed?  I can’t.

How many hardcore, lifelong Democrats are also unemployed right now?  How many more are likely to be unemployed by the time we hold the next election?  Given the choice between voting again for the party-line Democrat candidate and voting for the new socialist candidate, how many unemployed Democrats will break ranks and vote socialist?

What about the blacks and Hispanics who routinely vote Democrat?  Given their high numbers of unemployed in next year’s election, will they vote Democrat or socialist?

I’ll bet that 25% of current Democrats could vote socialist in A.D. 2016.  And I might be underestimating that percentage.

How many hardcore, lifelong Republicans are also unemployed right now?  How many more are likely to be unemployed by the time we hold the next election?  Given the choice between voting again for the party-line Republican candidate and voting for the new socialist candidate, how many unemployed Republicans will break ranks and vote socialist?

I’ll bet that at least 10% of our current Republicans will be unemployed by next year’s election.  I’ll bet that all of them will at least be tempted to do the unthinkable and vote socialist.

And that’s why I’m beginning to see that–OMG!–Bernie Sanders is not merely a credible candidate for next year’s presidential elections–he could soon be the odds-on favorite to win!


•  I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

No, really.  I’m not kidding.  I really am shocked.  The implications are enormous.

I think we might see an avowed “socialist” elected President next year.

Written by Alfred Adask
Full report at Adask’s Law

Leave a Reply