Bernie is still on a roll

A great piece on way Sanders is more of a threat to Wall Street and corporate economics can be found here.  2016 was supposed to have been the year of Jeb Bush versus Hillary
Clinton: the year when the established Bush dynasty confronted the
upstart rival Clinton Dynasty. But the year of the insider has turned
into the year of the outsider. On both sides, voters have unexpectedly
given vent to thirty years of accumulated anger with neoliberalism which
has downsized their incomes and hopes....



The rise of Trump and Cruz has merely accelerated Republicans’ date
with demographic destiny. The party of dog whistle racism, sexism and
immigrant bashing always faced a difficult future because of demographic
trends making minorities an increasing share of the electorate.




Republicans hoped to postpone that difficult future by a combination
of voter suppression policies (e.g. making voter registration difficult;
reducing polling booth access; and excluding minority voters via “new
Jim Crow” laws denying voting rights to convicted felons) and
gerrymandering congressional districts in states like Texas, Wisconsin
and Michigan. That has already given Republicans control of the House of
Representatives despite receiving far fewer total votes.



If the Sanders vision prevails, the Democrats will pivot toward their
New Deal social democratic roots. In that case, economic solidarity and
inclusion become the headline. And the party again aspires to be a mass
movement rather than an awkward stitching together of corporate money,
social liberals, and minority voters.

However, as long as unlimited money is allowed in politics, there is a
perennial danger of a backdoor Wall Street takeover. That is because a
New Deal Democratic Party would still need money to compete in
elections, leaving an opening for Corporate America and Wall Street to
take back control.


That is why limits on money contributions and repealing the Citizens United
decision are so important. It also explains why Sanders has made that
the central focus of his political revolution, while Clinton has
persistently sought to diminish the issue.



Next week's class reading helps to illuminate the impact of big money on elections.