Forget about the number of super delegates; or the several undemocratic manipulations by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The reality that stands out loud and clear at the end of April, with almost two-thirds of the primary-caucus vote having been cast, is that Hillary Clinton is commandingly leading Bernie Sanders in the democratically-chosen delegate count by a tally of 55 percent against 45 for the senator.
How the remaining primary vote goes through mid-June, unless some transformational event or revelation take place, is not likely to change quantifiably or selectively the fact that the former first lady is irrefutably poised to receive, by acclamation in Philadelphia one guesses, the Democratic nomination to vie for a long term lease—4 years with a conditional renewal for another 4 years—of the White House and its more celebrated political dependencies. And her scoundrel spouse, William Jefferson Clinton, smilingly, will be at the convention willing and able to receive all the political accolades he undoubtedly feels his multiple talents deserve.
But . . . unfortunately for the Democratic Party and the Clinton legacy, their future, as well as the White House might be forever lost. For all of the Scoundrel’s political savvy, he will finally appear, past the November election, in all its naked glory for history to judge: an articulate and charismatic American emperor who, although never wearing clothes, had much of the country seeing him through a deceitful sartorial kaleidoscope.
Let us reasonably, and logically, look at the repercussions as April ends and Indiana gets ready to vote and apportion its 92 Hoosier Democratic delegates. Does it make any sense that Hillary Clinton is receiving an inordinately, and questionably undeserving, high percentage of the Latino and Afro-American vote? That, while Bernie Sanders is garnering the same Pyrrhic vote as that which the Latino-Black folks are predicted to give Donald Trump in the general election? Go figure such illogical behavior!
Loyalty you say? Is Bernie just another unknown white-face, long on promises and short on their delivery . . . perhaps the rationale which reigns in many or most L&A minds? Whichever reasons are chosen, whether those or multiple others, it is obvious that leaders of the many social, business, religious and political groups are playing that fictional Hamelinian role leading their people to the precipice and asking them to jump; or, a contemporary, real example dating back to 1978 when Jim Jones offered “salvation” to his near-1,000 followers in Jonestown by asking them to drink a cyanide-laced little cup of Kool-Aid.
If the chosen parallel of Luciferian Jim Jones and African-American and Latino leaders seem farfetched . . . our intention is not to vilify anyone, nor to diminish these leaders’ best and noble intentions. Our sole intent is to point out the possible, no, the probable unintended consequences that Hillary Clinton’s nomination could bring to the entire nation . . . and more specifically to these two minorities that jointly comprise 31 percent of the “legal” US population—Hispanic/Latino 18 and Black 13—without any regard or consideration for 10–20 million undocumented or illegals, overwhelmingly Latino.
The mantle of qualifications vested on Hillary Clinton is weaved with nothing but the thread of exposure, more often used in the world of politics than in the real, business world . . . where lots of experience, if consistently associated to bad decision-making, do not qualify but actually disqualify someone from attaining more responsible positions. If Hillary’s sum total decisions, or adherence to decisions, were to be tallied in good and bad decision columns, from her start with Goldwater half century ago to her stint as secretary of state for Barack Obama—and her lack of vision when offering crucial advice to him, she would not receive a passing grade; not when bluntly failing the most critical and valuable attribute for a decision-maker: good judgment.
Qualifications and judgment aside, there is another variable in this particular election that has not been properly addressed. It has to do with those who “felt the Bern” and are unlikely to vote for Hillary even if Bernie himself pleads them to vote for her. Many of the millennials probably won’t bother to cast their vote . . . and another just-as-important and decisive group: that of poor white workers, who saw Bernie as the leader in their economic struggle might seek a Hillary-alternative as will many pacifists who see Clinton as hawkishness personified.
Probable end result when subtracting from the potential Democratic vote disenchanted millennials, economic-revolutionaries, and doves could easily bury any and all hope for the Clintons to return to the White House. Many millennials won’t vote; and many impoverished whites in the Democratic Party will feel forced to switch their anti-establishment allegiance from Bernie to Donald Trump, as incongruent as that may seem, hoping for a better economic future and/or a more constructive, less confrontational hawkish attitude internationally.
And that brings us to the conclusion that for all the antipathy that might exist between African-American and Latino “super-minorities” and Donald Trump, it is these major minority voting blocks that appear to be clearing the path for this Demeaner-in-Chief to exchange his ostentatious quarters in Trump Plaza for the more modest ceremonial trappings of the White House.
Ironic we might add, since a 50 percent vote for Bernie in the primaries by Blacks and Browns (which is far less than he might deserve given his past history and lofty principles), would have switched the percentage in delegate count from the current 55–45 percent favoring Hillary to a remarkable same 55–45, but this time favoring Bernie (the math is rather simple).
And the story in all probability ends here, “How Blacks and Browns Lost the Election for the Democratic Party in 2016,” without the need for a guru-performed political autopsy.
No, Jane (Sanders), there won’t be a miracle on Pennsylvania Avenue in 2017, just as there wasn’t one on 34th Street for Kris Kringle in 1947, even if in our fantasy we went ahead and fictionalized one.
Copyright © 2016 Tanosborn
Ben Tanosborn, columnist, poet and writer, resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA), where he is principal of a business consulting firm. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org.