It's been a wild ride and can only get wilder as November approaches.
"Clinton is really a republican. I wouldn't even say 'lite', particularly on economic and foreign issues."
There's never been a lot of daylight between the two establishment parties' respective positions and power bases, especially since Bill Clinton, America's answer to Tony Blair, swept in. I've said it before: the Repugs hate the Clintons for stealing all their 'best' ideas. Dubya was a bit of an outlier and an extremist, but only in the sense that he handed US foreign policy on a silver platter to Dick Cheney, probably because 9-11 scared the hell out of him and he just couldn't face it.
The Sanders campaign has always had a surreal (perhaps even moreso than Trump), rear-view mirror air to it. It never managed to broaden its appeal much beyond a nostalgic-progressive core, and took too much for granted, resulting in serial, egregious blunders that blindly and willfully ceded huge swaths of delegates to Hillary, just so Bernie could continue to be Bernie. I must assume he bears personal responsibility for his campaign's tone-deafness on issues such as gun control and endemic racism. He is truly trapped by a persona well past it's sell-by date, even if college kids just now discovered it, and think it's novel and cute.
Sanders and Trump have both traded on widespread disaffection in the American hinterland first manifested by the tea party, the sense that the 'social contract', such as it was, has been abandoned and the middle class (now have-nots) with it. There's a lot of economic misery and fear afoot. Dangerous times.
And speaking of fear, Clinton has a potent library of Trump's most toxic rants in her back pocket. All Trump has is: she's a woman, and she's a Clinton. I think we'll see how little traction that has outside of rabid conservatives.
EDITED: 27 Apr 2016 13:14 by DSMITHHFX