Are you sure you want to delete this post?
sanders speaks well. so does clinton to a degree. insulting either is counter-productive and i would say that the two of them insulting each other is counter-productive. sanders problem lies in a people and a congress who will in the end not support his programs when the rubber meets the road meaning when they might actually have to be inconvenienced in some manner.
as for the system or the establishment these are words which serve only to muddy the waters.
as kevin phillips noted in "american theocracy" this country made the conscious decision to shift from manufacturing to service with the f.i.r.e. sector leading the way. this is NOT the same as saying we suddenly became an economy focused on consumption. that is nonsense. ALL economies focus on and require consumption. products manufactured have to be consumed somewhere whether domestically or not. the problem lies in that the jobs that created the middle class, manufacturing and generally unionized or impacted positively by unions, have vanished due to either technology or the results of financialization.
i would posit that the concept of the most powerful nation in the world which means militarily and economically derives from circumstances which those holding political power took advantage of. as particular nations waned others waxed. the u.s. waxed while the british empire waned. at the end of ww1 the british empire basically was a hollow shell. ww2 finished it off and the u.s. through their economic policies instituted after the founding of the republic were able to truly establish the country as the economic power in the world. the bulk of the west's economies were train wrecks and of course the u.s. was the leading oil producer which also heavily impacted the rise of the economy. so the u.s. stood astride the world. a combination of time, circumstances, willful blindness, arrogance and financialization has altered the makeup of the u.s. political economy. we must note that for all of the bleating of social issues no one wants to change the underlying system with the possible exception of sanders. the reason is that the "system" or the "establishment" ARE the u.s. political economy. and the overwhelming vast majority of people either do not want the upheaval which will naturally occur should the system be altered or they believe trump saying he will "bring those jobs back." newsflash, those jobs aren't coming back. that genie is out of the phucquing bottle. so-called creative destruction which is simply a statement based upon the observation that new technologies supplant old ones does not create the mass jobs that previous creative destruction did. until the so-called service economy starts to pay wages similar to the manufacturing economy of the post-ww2 era we will not see the middle class revitalized. but what do we see? the right and far too many "middle class' people bashing unions, bashing teachers and so on. cutting their own throats due to being temporarily embarrassed millionaires. cognitive dissonance reigns supreme in this country. don't look for the millennial or some other meme named group to come to the rescue of the political economy. it ain't happening.
so the bottom line out of all of this is we are reduced to issues such as the scotus which while important in their way are merely the sideshow to the greater problem. sanders lacks for overall support due to most americans being loaded with inertia and like people everywhere afraid of change and clinton simply does not have it in her to affect the change required or lead the people to the change required. and republicans? they are almost a different species of primate.