Supporters at a Bernie Sanders rally in St Mary's Park in the Bronx on April 14.
Despite a decisive victory on April 19, providing further confirmation of her likely nomination, in many respects Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton emerged from the New York primary more damaged and her party more divided.
What came to be called The Battle of New York has served only to further expose what millions of people in the US are becoming painfully aware of — the Democratic Party primary is rigged in favour of the establishment.
The discussion started with the Democrats' top-down super-delegate system (whereby the party machine appoints large numbers of unelected delegates to help elect its presidential candidate) and enormous influence of corporate money in politics.
It has gone on to raise awareness about the generally undemocratic nature of the Democratic Party itself — with its myriad of anti-democratic voting rules, frontloading of conservative states, heavy tilting of the playing field by the media establishment, and the antagonistic role of Democratic Party leaders towards grassroots challengers like Sanders.
Before the New York primary even began, more than 27% of New Yorkers (3 million people) were excluded by restrictive voting laws as well as the removal of previously registered voters identified as “inactive”.
In one Brooklyn precinct, officials said 10% of those who showed up to vote found their names had been purged. In the county in which Brooklyn resides, more than 125,000 voters had been cut from the Democratic rolls, leading to a huge 14% drop of eligible voters in 5 months time.
Meanwhile, in upstate New York polling station, hours were substantially cut back in areas more favourable to Sanders. On top of this, in a rule hardly anyone was aware of, only voters who registered as Democrats by last October 9 were eligible to vote.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio felt compelled to comment: “The perception that numerous voters may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process, and must be fixed.” The city's comptroller vowed to “undertake an audit of the operations and management of the Board of Elections.”
Clinton's 15-point margin of victory is almost certainly greater than the sum of irregularities. But it is clear that if independents and others wrongly excluded could vote, the outcome would have been far closer and Sanders may even have won.
Closed primaries like New York's (in which only registered Democrats can vote) are unfavourable to grassroots challenges. They purge from the process the millions of people registered as independent who have drawn conclusions about the corrupt character of both parties.
Media establishment
The power of the New York media establishment was on full display during the primary as it declared open war on Sanders. Even “progressive” papers like the New York Daily News went all out, repeatedly running sensationalised, libellous front-page attacks on him.
Perhaps the most important result of the New York primary was not the vote, but the political impact of Sanders' campaign on thousands actively involved or watching closely.
National corporate media has weighed in heavily on behalf of Clinton throughout the primary process. First, with a virtual media blackout on Sanders last year, while Clinton was portrayed as the inevitable nominee and Trump received more than 20 times the media coverage than the self-proclaimed socialist from Vermont.
But as Sanders became more clearly a threat, the media establishment went all out to discredit him. From endless attacks on his policy proposals by prominent liberal figures like Paul Krugman, to onslaughts like that of the Washington Post on March 1, where they published one anti-Sanders article an hour for 16 hours.
Voting irregularities have also popped up in state after state. While some were undoubtedly exaggerated, others had real effects. In Arizona, where there were five-hour lines at the polls, many people also found their voter registrations switched without their knowledge.
The primary is heavily skewed toward older, wealthier party loyalists. Nationally, less than 15% of eligible voters will participate in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
Pro-corporate party
Working people have seen the pro-corporate character of the Democratic Party leadership on full display. It is no accident that Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley recently became the only Senator to endorse Sanders. By comparison, 40 Senators have come out for Clinton, along with 166 members of the House Representatives.
To this establishment, Sanders' call for a political revolution against billionaires and wealthy campaign donors is unacceptable. These Democrats base themselves on the exchange of favours and a revolving door of influence between elected positions and lucrative corporate positionss. Meanwhile, they use their weight and influence to whip labour and church leaders into line.
Add to this the financial power of Wall Street and you have a party that is hostile towards a candidate of the 99%.
One simple fact reveals the rigged character of the system: National polls consistently show Sanders enjoys, by far, the highest favourability rating of all presidential candidates. He beats all Republicans in head-to-head match-ups.
Yet he will very likely be eliminated before the general election if he plays by the rules of the two-party system.
Historic opportunity
We are entering what is possibly the most favourable moment in US history to launch a new left party. Public trust is collapsing in both major parties, the establishment media and other key institutions propping up US capitalism.
Eight years since the Great Recession, most workers are still suffering despite the recovery on Wall Street. The built-up anger and discontent is expressing itself in a bitter revolt against establishment Democratic and Republican leaders.
This is the context for Sanders' dramatic rise. He has run the strongest distinctly left-wing presidential campaign in US history since famed socialist militant Eugene Debs early last century. (Though Debs, who ran on the Socialist Party ticket, was clear about the corporate domination over the Democratic Party.)
Sanders started his campaign with no name recognition, polling 3% and without any elected figures of national significance backing him. He has won more votes, more state primaries, raised more money, and mobilised more volunteers than any comparable left challenge in the Democratic Party's history.
He has done all that with a genuinely left-wing platform, refusing corporate donations, embracing the socialist label, and making a call for “a political revolution against the billionaire class” his central slogan.
The strength of Sanders' campaign is breathtaking. Clinton began the election with what, on paper, appeared set to be among the most formidable corporate election machines ever assembled.
Yet in the last three months, with an average donation of US$27, Sanders has tapped his expanding base of small donors — now more than two million strong — to raise dramatically more than Clinton. In March, Sanders raised $44 million to Clinton's $29.5 million.
A year ago, every self-respecting mainstream pundit was still peddling the myth that no candidate refusing corporate contributions could be electorally viable, much less one calling themselves a socialist. That idea is now dead.
The potential is clear for building a nationally viable left political party, independent of corporations, putting forward left, working-class policies. The only remaining question is will Sanders take the initiative and, if not, will the forces behind him pull it together?
A new party
“I believe that we need to think very seriously, particularly as folks of colour and progressives, about building either a new party or a new movement,” said Michelle Alexander, esteemed author of The New Jim Crow on MSNBC on April 1.
Three days later, writing in New York Daily News, the nation's fourth largest circulation paper, a column by Shaun King added: “I think it's already happening right before our very eyes. Political progressives across this country, in supporting the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, are completely rejecting the Democratic Party…
“We should form our own political party in which we are firmly and boldly against the death penalty, where we are for a living wage all across this country, where we are for a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system, where we are for radical reforms to protect the environment and curb global warming, where we are for the eradication of big money in politics, where we are willing to truly consider healthcare and education for all as a right and not a privilege.”
Approaching the same question from the opposite standpoint, Paul Krugman's April 8 New York Times column echoed King's insight.
Krugman warned Sanders to tone down his attacks on Clinton or risk a deeper rupture from the Democratic Party, arrogantly asking: “Is Mr. Sanders positioning himself to join the 'Bernie or bust' crowd? If not, what does he think he's doing?”
The stronger Sanders' “political revolution against the billionaire class” has become, the more it has threatened to break out of the straightjacket imposed by the corporate-dominated Democratic Party.
My group, Socialist Alternative, and #Movement4Bernie are petitioning Sanders, if he is blocked by a rigged primary process, to continue running as an independent or on the Green Party ticket with Jill Stein. We are asking him to call a conference to discuss launching a new party of the 99%.
If there are concerns about helping to elect a Republican, there is no reason Sanders could not at least run in the more than 40 states where it is clear the Democratic or Republican candidate will win.
This could still allow for a historic campaign if linked to building a new party for the 99% and laying the foundation for an ongoing mass political movement to run hundreds of left candidates for all levels of government, independent of corporate cash.
Collapsing the anti-establishment movement behind Sanders into the Clinton campaign — a false unity with the candidate of Wall Street — would leave the field open for right-populists like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to expand their base.
If Sanders chooses that path, continuing the political revolution will mean Sandernistas boldly moving beyond Bernie.
[Abridged from Counterpunch. Kshama Sawant is a socialist councillor in Seattle. The Sociailsm for the 21st Century conference in Sydney on May 13-15 will feature a session on Corbyn, Sanders and the repopularisation of socialism.]
Like the article? Subscribe to Green Left now! You can also like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.