Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was stunned, when she realized that she didn’t have young women’s vote, because after all, Clinton is a woman! Instead, they like Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. But Clinton is going to win the primary, isn’t she? Well, don’t be so sure.
Twenty-five-year-old Gemma best described why young women are voting for Sanders, not Clinton, when she wrote her parents an open letter on Facebook. It is a love letter to them, where she reminds them of Sanders’ issues, the same ones she learned so well from them.
They taught her that education is a “fundamental right” regardless of “income, race, or gender,” and how “all people: gay, straight, queer, trans—deserve to…love equally openly and safely.” Her parents took her to an anti-war rally when she was just 10-years-old and taught her about Vietnam, our country’s “military industrial complex, and the atrocities of the Iraq war.”
Gemma’s parents took her when they argued against the death penalty in front of their state legislation. They taught her how to “address poverty, disease and violence worldwide with peace & discourse.”
They took her to films, to show her that art and music are political tools that can expose “hypocrisy, corruption, greed and the insidious capitalism that controls this country.”
Then she gets to the thrust of her argument for a Sanders vote:
‘…equality is more important than security. That political action is imperative as a citizen of this country…That change doesn’t need a precedent to be viable. That the establishment has rarely, if ever, been right. That we serve those less fortunate and we never, ever, ever stop debating.’
‘Most importantly, you taught me that women should never be under anyone’s thumb. So, why are you voting for Hilary Clinton? Did I miss a lesson? Did I miss the part where resistance got confused with idealism, where practicality trumps values and where identity politics outweigh revolutionary ideas?’
‘…So, Bernie Sanders, you can thank my parents for my vote, but you can’t thank them for theirs. Live free or die.’
Clinton lost the young women’s vote. Then, after the night of Nevada caucuses, the media told us that Sanders had a “steep climb.” Clinton won 52 of the state’s delegates, and Sanders only has…51? Wait a minute! That isn’t what I call Sanders losing. I call that a tie. So, why is the establishment media telling us Sanders has no chance of winning the primary?
But doesn’t Clinton have all of the superdelegates? Nope. The New York Times used the “preferences” of the 712 superdelegates (party elites) to imply that Sander’s campaign is all but over, when that is simply not true.
The superdelegates have preferences, but former Labor of Secretary to President Bill Clinton and economist Richard Reich certainly looks like a Sanders supporter. He is calling for each superdelegate go on record, saying “they will support whomever the popularly-elected nominee turns out to be.” Reich writes in a letter to Democrats:
‘That’s the only way this nonsense in the media will end — and the only way to restore the faith of many voters in the nomination process.’
The legislators who support Hillary Clinton may just be resistant to change, resistant to losing the easy money from a bent political system.
Clinton can’t bring in the significant young women’s vote, and she doesn’t have the superdelegates nailed down.
I’d say that Bernie Sanders has a good chance of winning the Democratic primary. Sorry, Hillary Clinton.
Featured Image: United States Mission Geneva Livestream via Flickr, Creative Commons