The primary elections in the United States (US) are over, and the two major parties have chosen their presidential candidates. The official nominations will occur during the party conventions, but barring any unforeseen events it will be Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump. After the loss in the California primary even Bernie Sanders has sort of given up, and President Barack Obama has come out and endorsed Hillary Clinton. So, as they say, the stage is set. The most interesting part of the election campaign so far has been Senator Sanders’ strong challenge to Clinton. On the Republican side, the weak challenge that a large field of seemingly excellent candidates offered to Trump has completely perplexed most political observers. The next big step on both sides will be the national party conventions, and the choice of a vice presidential candidate. Then over the next few months the election scenario will become more clear and polling more applicable to the general election. What happens in November is still a while away but what has happened so far is pretty amazing. Today, I want to talk a bit about Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and his effective campaign against Hillary Clinton. Sanders was a relatively less known political figure and a political ‘independent’ who joined the Democratic Party just a year ago to contest in the Democratic primary process. Even so he was able to gather considerable support among Democratic voters as well as many Democratic leaning independents. Most importantly, he generated great support among young voters. Generally speaking much of Sanders’ support was from the anti-Clinton crowd, but his support among young people especially college students was quite impressive. Sanders is a self-avowed ‘Democratic Socialist’, whatever that means. But he is clearly to the left of Clinton, and some might say even belongs to a left fringe in politics that is not very popular. However, Sanders campaign has done two important if symbolic things in American politics. First, it has made the word ‘socialist’ politically acceptable, and second, it has pushed the Democratic Party to the left and away from its ‘neoliberal’ positions on many issues. During the 1990s under President Bill Clinton, the Democrats in the US moved towards the political middle, and started to support ‘free markets’ and free trade. They accepted less progressive taxation that allowed the rich to become richer, and they were willing to restrict the comprehensive security net. So much so that the word liberal became unpopular and the old time liberals start calling themselves ‘progressives’. Under President Obama there has been some attempt at bringing back the old liberal politics but not quite as much as was expected by many Obama supporters. The ‘Great Recession’ during the last decade undermined the American middle class and led to a greater concentration of wealth among a small percentage of people. The Republican Party that has controlled much of the US Congress for the last eight years has prevented any effective redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation or a major ‘infrastructure’ investment that could function as a new ‘works programme’. By the time the presidential elections rolled in last year, both on the political left and the political right a large disaffected population existed that wanted a change in the status quo. On the left it was mostly members of the traditional working classes that had lost out as the labour movement and trade unions lost power. Wage stagnation over the last decade was a major problem. Most importantly the ‘young’ were losing hope in the system and did not see any improvements in the economy that would provide them with a better future. As I said above I want to limit myself today to what has gone on in the Democratic Party primary elections. Sanders’ campaign was a strong challenge to the political establishment on the Democratic side. The Democratic Party is a coalition of different groups that mostly include minorities, classical labour, and much of the old left. However, as I said above, under President Clinton the Democratic Party moved to the centre. For many members of the old Democratic coalition it seemed that the neoliberal Democrats were not much different from the Republican Party. For this reason many among the old liberal-left coalition were willing to support a ‘democratic socialist’. Clinton is clearly associated with the neoiberal policies of her husband. As far as the young are concerned, as is often said, if you are not radical /socialist/leftist when you are young you were never young and if you still are a radical/socialist/leftist when you grow up then you never grew up. Interestingly the young have a greater need to get involved in politics when things are really bad or when things are generally better. The aftermath of the Great Recession helped mobilise the young to come out and support Senator Obama eight years ago, and now that things are better, the young are supporting Senator Sanders. Unfortunately, for Senator Sanders the young are not enough to win national primaries. Much of the classical Democratic coalition including most minorities, classical labour and the Democratic ‘establishment’ stayed in Clinton’s corner, and provided her with enough support to easily win the Democratic primary race. But Clinton did have to move to the political left on some issues especially on free trade, Wall Street control, and universal health care. Whether she stays there remains to be seen, but I at least do not believe that ‘moving to the centre’ is going to be a viable general election strategy for her. The big question about Clinton is that why a person who just five years ago was one of the most admired women in America is now generating so much negative feeling. If Senator Sanders decides to fully support her and if she can reverse the negative popularity trend then Hillary Clinton will most likely be the next President of the United States. The author is a former editor of the Journal of Association of Pakistani descent Physicians of North America (APPNA)