New Hampshire’s primaries are only three weeks away and some believe a recent poll suggests Bernie Sanders could be edging out Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The poll, released last Tuesday, put Sanders in a 27 percentage point lead on Clinton.
Jamie Gillies, St. Thomas communications professor, said it could be a historical event should Sanders and Donald Trump succeed in winning the Democratic and Republican nominations.
“Then this will be an American presidential election for the ages, where each party chooses a non-establishment candidate. That has never happened in the modern political era,” he corresponded.
More recent polling suggests there may have been a sampling error, Sanders’ lead is roughly around nine points. But more than ever, it seems the political left and right are divided and increasingly polarized.
Trump is a self-backed, corporate giant with a populist appeal. Sanders on the other hand is a self-proclaimed socialist and backed by a grassroots movement.
Shaun Narine, international relations professor at STU, said he believes it’s these feelings that political elites have run the nation into the ground that have given rise to alternative candidates like Sanders and Trump.
“Many Americans, on either side of the political spectrum, believe that things have gone terribly wrong,” said Narine. “It come down to a question of who is addressing the issues that matter? And who do you trust to address the issues that matter?”
The United States is in a state of political decay and these common threads have given rise to non-establishment candidates. Strong disagreements on who is to blame and how to solve the problem led to the polarity of the candidates.
“The democrats still have the considerable advantage of having credible candidates running for their leadership positions,” said Narine. “So if you’re a moderate, middle of the road voter – which way are you more inclined to vote?”
Republicans have been reaching to the extreme right for some years now. Trump may be populist, but his base is small. Sanders – who seems as though he’s on the extreme left – is only so in comparison. In reality, Sanders would be more of a slightly left leaning, but mainstream politician in Canada.
“The smart money is still on Hillary Clinton winning the nomination,” said Narine. “But I think it’s going to be a much harder fight for her than she thought.”
Narine said Sanders appeals to young people because the issues he takes on are those which matter to them. He said if Sanders is able to use this to mobilize the youth vote, he may stand a good chance at the nomination. In order for Clinton to gain the nomination, he suggests she may have to move to the left.
Michael Camp, journalism and communications professor at STU, is also betting on Clinton. But he seems to discourage the idea of Clinton moving to the left. While Sanders is doing better than initially expected in the short game of the primaries, it’s the presidency Clinton has her eye on.
“Primaries aren’t now and have never been a good indication of general public opinion when it comes to politics in the United States,” said Camp. “Winning or losing a few states makes no difference.”
Camp scribbles a rough graph to explain how Republicans have isolated themselves on the far right. Candidates like Trump and Ted Cruz draw up a lot of support, but only from a small base. On the opposite end, Sanders has tapped into a new market on the “far left.” But Clinton is left alone in the middle – where the majority of public opinion lies.
“I think she’s the smart one,” said Camp. “She’s willing to sacrifice short-term gain, for long term objectives… Americans will take moderation but they won’t take extremism.”
Gillies said candidates must “win, place or show” in key areas like Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina to stay in the race. If they don’t, then they can be seen as less viable candidates and supporters will stop funding them, ending their campaign. He agrees Clinton is still a safe bet, though Sanders does seem to be “complicating what should have been an easy win.”
Without states like New Hampshire and Iowa, Sanders’ grassroots funding will fall out from under him and he will be out of the race. Trump on the other hand, is a wild card – and not just because he’s gained more support than initially anticipated. Unlike many other candidates, Trump has the resources to fund his campaign past the first three primaries, even if he loses.
“The Republican race is very much up in the air,” wrote Gillies. “There likely will be an insurgent and establishment candidate that fight it out. Maybe [Jeb] Bush or [Marco] Rubio versus Cruz, but Trump can stay in the race and spend as much money as he wants.”
Trump has been entertaining to the masses and has voiced concerns from a small close-knit group on the far right. Admittedly, he’s been more successful than people ever expected, but he’s not necessarily a viable candidate in the long run.
“What people want from a president is someone with sober judgment,” said Camp. “Someone who’s not going to drive the ship of the state onto the rocks. Not someone who is going to feed the people an impossible dream.”
Camp pulls up pictures of all the candidates on Google. He goes over their features and asks “is this what a president looks like?” for each one. While this might seem superficial, he said history has shown us that presidents are expected to look a certain way. The people have certain image expectations of their leaders.
He leans back in his chair and studies each picture before moving on. In his opinion, Clinton and Bush seem to have the most presidential airs about them.
He has a point. Sanders is fatherly, but also too fragile. There’s something dorky or goofy about Cruz. Rubio looks good, but he’s still about 15 years too young. Trump is untrustworthy and impetuous – even his hair is a lie.
While this logic may seem overly simplified, look at past races, like John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Was it their policies or looks that the public liked? When the election was over, those who listened on the radio were shocked. They were sure Nixon had won. Those who watched on television were not surprised at all it was J.F.K. who stepped into the oval office.
Ultimately, what this election – and the primaries – will come down to, is how much change are Americans willing to accept? How fed up are they with the system? What conversations are they prepared to have? And who do they want to look at for the next four years?
