To be, or not to be; The choices and fate of American politicians and voters.

The Democratic debate was constructive (compared to the Republican debates which are just debilitatingly devoid of substance) and served to highlight the main themes of the candidates, which at this point are well known. Hillary, having long ago accepted the public will always regard her with an air of suspicion, made her case as the more pragmatic candidate with more experience. Sanders made the case for the public to not “accept” that leaders like Clinton are the new norm, and instead, back him.

I like Sanders, in theory, he brings to the Democrat party what they so desperately needed: someone with vision, who can rile people up with emotions. Democrats had a taste of it during Obama’s ’08 run, but it quickly faded from memory (though the taste lingered on the tongue). The Democrat party has struggled to produce leaders who can connect to the electorate in the way the Republican candidates do. Admittedly, the Republicans have it easier because they can hide behind the visage of god and liberty; when you hear someone unashamedly bashing your own enemies, you connect with them on a more emotional level than if they were talking about debt-reduction. The Republican party has always been better at creating goons to bash, and then devising ingenious methods (usually involving heavy artillery, bibles, and bald eagles) to destroy said goons, than the Democrats have been. This is partially because the right-wing mindset (which as Trump and Cruz are proving is now very different from the conservative mindset) lends itself to paranoia and anger, but partially because the Democrats have had less to bash due to their more moderate positions. Sanders uses his leftist views (which despite what the media and public seem to think, would not be considered extreme in any other developed country in the world) to create goons and bash them with an eloquence that has woken up a large part of the electorate that long ago gave in to voting for a candidate they considered “adequate” or “better than the alternative.” Sanders has also managed to pull Hillary far left of where she began, and forced her to construct some really meaty policy proposals where previously only shadow promises existed (humorously what she now criticizes her opponent for doing).

Ironically, while Hillary seems to consider herself the leader more likely to get stuff done in office with a Republican led congress, Republicans despise her exponentially more than Sanders, who (if elected [a big if]) could end up being far more pragmatic than he has let on he is willing to be (as most politicians must do in order to survive Washington’s shredder of a bureaucracy). At the end of the day, it comes down to placing a bet. Many Democrats (forever on the defensive) are facing a choice they weren’t expecting to make: whether to throw caution to the wind and vote with their ideals, or throw their lot in with Ms. Clinton. Once in office, Democrats would have to accept that Ms. Clinton (by admittance of herself as the candidate who would get stuff done) could very well compromise on issues Democrats hold dear.

This is where the sticking point emerges. Democrats have (despite securing the White House for the past eight years) spent this millennium feeling as if they are constantly ceding ground to a shapeshifting monster whose form cannot be known (even to those enveloped by it). While Republicans would argue they have been the real losers of the past 16 years, their anger mostly stems from issues outside of either party's control: America's fading dominance in the world (an issue which although Republicans love to trump [a pun!] is not as serious as they would have you believe), a rise of environmentalism, the decline of the dominance of Christian faith in American culture and politics, and the loss of many blue-collar jobs.

Side note: The latter reason is arguably a governmental fault, but the solution (heavy and impractical subsidies, regulations, and anti-progress protectionism) contradicts everything the Republican party would claim to stand for.

Democrats anger stems from problems that can be sourced back to the government: inequality in economic progress, the disparity of race in American crime-fighting, a lack of tough environmental laws (one of the many areas where the two parties cannot agree on whether too much or too little is being done), and a continued freedom among corporations and wealthy individuals to conduct business as they please, and use the profits to shape government as they please (this is arguably the first election where the right-wing is just as concerned about this as the left-wing is).

So although both parties feel as though they are ceding ground to the other, Democrats are arguable in a more pressing situation. Republicans will end up feeling let down no matter which candidate they chose, such is the burden of having a party that is arguably two separate political mindsets, whereas Democrats are being given the chance to select a candidate who is going where no candidate in memory has gone (remember Obama ran to the right of Hillary in ’08). Sanders will probably end up not receiving the nomination due to electoral poker, a lack of connections with minority voters, and the party leaders’ own fears about his electability. Despite this, I think what will emerge is a new-found confidence among Democrats to hold their leaders to a higher standard; to demand leaders who inspire them with idealism, leaders who are dogmatic rather than pragmatic, and unscripted and raw rather than polished and slick (both electorates are waking up to this appeal). The Democrats are tired of constantly having to put their own ideals aside to ensure a victory. They are no longer satisfied with the “better than the alternative” argument and it’s about time.

Ultimately, Sanders has done a wonderful thing for the Democrat electorate. The Republican voters are masters at getting more from their candidates by holding them to a high-standard (and most importantly punishing them accordingly when they fail). Democrats have mostly ignored their candidates flaws and mistakes, for fear that doing otherwise would leave them adrift in a sea of red. They are only now waking up to the reality that if they come together and demand more from their candidates, perhaps more than any candidate can realistically deliver, they can push that candidate to the higher ground on which they so desperately wish to stand.