The Battle of Life and Death for Democrats in the 'Empire State'

The Democratic Party finally reached a point where, during the debate, the moderator addressed the candidates saying, 'If you keep shouting at each other, people won't understand what you're saying!' The debate, which was outside the Democratic Party's schedule, took place on Thursday in Brooklyn (one of the five boroughs of New York City) where Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton fiercely attacked each other. Throughout the U.S. presidential election campaign from 2016 to today, the excited shouting, simultaneous speaking, and personal attacks were characteristics of the Republican Party's highly viewed debates. However, the latest Democratic debate showed that they too will not spare each other if necessary. The next step in the primary elections to choose the presidential candidate for the two main parties in the U.S. will be taken on Tuesday, April 19 (31 Farvardin) in the 'Empire State,' and the very close competition between the two Democratic candidates has led both to experience a different debate. The most important part of the debate on Wednesday night was the moments when Sanders and Clinton argued! It was during these moments that both presented their main criticisms against each other. From these criticisms, it became clear that their differences within the framework of the Democratic Party's policies are deeper than previously thought. Sanders once again brought up the issue of unlimited support from capitalists for Clinton; support that is provided through 'super PACs,' which, although not directly connected to Clinton's campaign, still fund millions for advertisements in her favor by wealthy donors. In response, Clinton questioned Sanders' proposed policies for confronting investment and credit institutions on Wall Street, stating that he has not provided any executable plan for reforming the U.S. financial system and stock trading regulations. Clinton also compared her situation regarding financial contributions from capitalists to Barack Obama, who won the 2008 election in a similar manner, claiming that these contributions did not influence her decisions, and as President, she implemented the strictest initiatives to control financial institutions. Clinton also pointed out Sanders' Achilles' heel by highlighting the issue of gun rights in America and Sanders' conservative stance on this matter. At a time when American liberals are more than ever seeking to limit gun rights, Sanders implicitly defended the legality of buying and selling guns in some states (including his own state of Vermont), stating that when a gun is sold legally and a crime is committed with it, the seller is not to blame; a position that likely does not please many Democratic supporters. However, in one part of his face-off with Clinton, Sanders chose a different strategy than in recent days: the issue of presidential qualifications. Sanders stated that this issue was first raised by Clinton's campaign, claiming that he is not qualified. Instead of repeating his previous stance that Clinton is unqualified for the presidency, he calmly stated that he believes Clinton has the 'experience' and 'intelligence' for the presidency, but what she lacks is the judgment and ability to distinguish right from wrong. Sanders cited Clinton's positive vote for the Iraq War in the Senate and her support for trade agreements as evidence for his claim. When the topic of Israel came up—in a city with a significant Jewish population—both candidates emphasized the need for peace. However, it was Sanders who stated that respect must be given to the Palestinians and their dignity must be considered in the Middle East issue. Clinton quickly responded that the last meeting between Palestinian and Israeli leaders was mediated by her during her tenure as Secretary of State. Nevertheless, in this debate, Clinton once again demonstrated her belief in aggressive foreign policy. While Sanders constantly emphasized that changing the political regimes of other countries can have unpredictable results, Clinton brought up the example of Syria, stating that if the U.S. had intervened quickly in the Syrian crisis, it would not have escalated to this point. All of this was stated while the New York audience was either cheering or booing one of the candidates! Ultimately, what each candidate gained was satisfying their supporters, but it is still unclear whether any undecided votes were swayed by this debate. Currently, in the aggregate of polls, Clinton is still ahead of Sanders, and expert sites like 538 indicate that Clinton is very likely to win the New York election. On the other hand, due to heavy losses in populous southern states, Sanders not only needs to win in New York but must achieve this victory with a high and acceptable vote count to narrow the gap with Clinton. Otherwise, this competition will continue in populous states where Clinton is leading in many polls and is the main contender for victory. The miracle of Sanders' 'political revolution' without New York is almost impossible, and in the event of defeat, Sanders' candidacy will soon become mathematically impossible. However, if Sanders wins after all these polls predicting Clinton's victory, not only will his status improve in terms of delegates at the Democratic National Convention, but it will also inject extraordinary morale and energy into his campaign that could propel him to the White House. The riddle of Sanders and Clinton will be revealed next Tuesday.