Report: A precise look at Sanders vs Trump in 2016. (Chapter 5)

Chapter 5: Bernie Sanders’ particular strengths against Donald Trump

In chapters one and two, we explored the available evidence during the 2015-2016 primary cycle that Bernie Sanders would have fared better against Donald Trump in a general election. Chapter 1 showed that Sanders polled better than Clinton against the Republican candidates, especially the likely nominee, Donald Trump. And chapter 2 showed that Sanders had a very high “favorability” among the broad electorate, which is associated with general election victories — as opposed to both Clinton and Trump, who were highly disliked among the broad electorate.

The numbers added up: Bernie Sanders would have won the “blue states,” just like Hillary Clinton — then Bernie Sanders would have won many of the important swing states that Clinton lost.

The only real argument against the polling and favorability data — which showed Sanders beating Trump by much a much greater margin than Clinton — is that Sanders would have fallen much farther than Clinton did after the primary election.

It is typically argued that Sanders hadn’t been “attacked” or “vetted” yet, and certainly because of this, he would have ultimately lost after faced with these “real” attacks. The counter-argument that Bernie wouldn’t have beaten Donald Trump — because his support would have fallen farther and faster than Clinton’s did — is wrong for several reasons. First and foremost, it relies on a blind faith and wishful thinking.

This is an argument made out of desperation, always from supporters of Hillary Clinton, or simply loyal Democrats (who clearly do not want to believe or admit that while Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders wouldn’t have). That would be admitting a grave, grave mistake in supporting Clinton over Sanders, because it would be admitting that supporting Clinton, and/or undermining the Sanders campaign, was largely responsible for Donald Trump becoming president.

From this base of hurt and denial, it becomes easier to ignore the evidence. It becomes easier make bad arguments, and just hope and repeat that surely it couldn’t have turned out that way — Bernie wouldn’t have won. Trump was just inevitable, and there’s nothing the Democrats could have done differently to avoid it.

So we must understand that all the counter-arguments that Bernie “wouldn’t” have won against Trump — all of them flow out of this faithful desperation — rather than overwhelming evidence otherwise that was available before, during, and after the Democratic primary elections.

While it is true that the “full” amount of smears had not yet been used against Sanders, it is untrue that he had not been “attacked” or “vetted” yet. By the time of the end of the 2016 Democratic primary, Bernie Sanders had been attacked and vetted quite a bit from the Clinton team and the media. While Sanders was attacked, it did not hurt him — actually, as shown graphically in chapters one and two, it improved his support by giving him more exposure.

This was a recurring theme in Bernie Sanders’ career. If you read about Sanders’ political history, he frequently upset establishment candidates, media outlets, and entire parties who brought their full force of “attacks” down on him. Bernie Sanders won in the end by being an honest, sympathetic, issues-oriented candidate. Sanders won throughout his political career by maintaining the high ground. If you attack someone, but your attack appears wrong — you are going to look like the bad guy, not the person you attacked.

A year beyond the 2016 general election, Bernie Sanders remains highly popular among the broad electorate. And he has been the main voice against the Republican Congress, and Donald Trump. Yet the media and Republicans have attacked him throughout the year. Below you can see how, almost a year after the election, Bernie Sanders’ support is still high after all these “attacks.”


In the above poll, conducted in September 2017, Bernie Sanders is faring better than Hillary Clinton among every demographic and political affiliation — including women, Democrats, and black Americans.

But that’s just one example, one small piece of evidence among so much. In this chapter, we will look at why the attacks on Bernie Sanders have typically failed, and would continue to fail if he were nominated in 2016.

As explored in chapter 3, as part of the “anti-establishment” sentiment in 2016, whenever Sanders was attacked, the ones attacking him were people and groups who the broad electorate did not like — the mainstream news, the party establishment, or simply another phony politician. Therefore, “attacking” Bernie Sanders would simply give him more visibility, which would often translate into more support.

Not only did people have an overall poor opinion (negative net favorability) of the ones who would attack Bernie Sanders — like Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and both political parties — Bernie Sanders had a long and consistent history of overcoming these kind of attacks. He would actually use the attacks against the attackers, simply by using it as an opportunity to tell the truth, counter the lies and cheap shots, and show that he had real solutions and could represent his constituents.

All Sanders needs is to be heard and known, and that’s how his numbers grow. And that’s what the “attacks” did during the primary elections, and that’s what they would have done during the general election.

It’s also true that if there is much “dirt” and “corruption” to find in Bernie Sanders’ past, to use against him politically — there is very little that is significant to find. Certainly, there are far less skeletons in Sanders’ closet than Trump’s or Clinton’s.

They tried. Though several examples were mentioned in the previous chapter 4, and a different report, we will look at a few examples later down the page. The Clinton campaign, for example, insinuated through the primary that Sanders is sexist, racist, misogynist, and even a communist-sympathizer. And when they did this, his support went up, not down. This is proven by Sanders’ increasing support through the primary, his high polling and positive net favorability ratings late in the primary, and his steady and increasing stream of donations throughout the primary.

(fan art, and it was true)

And just like Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012 while the Republicans cried “socialism” — indeed, Democrats have been called “socialist” by the Republicans for the past several decades — the majority of people in 2016, at least as much as in 2008 and 2012, were willing to support good politicians and good policy. And they would rather do that than be scared of a word. The party establishment’s insult of “socialism,” by now, had clearly lost credibility. It simply wasn’t going to work as much as Hillary’s last defenders envision it would.

Trump would play right into Sanders’ strengths. With Hillary Clinton, Trump could point to her major political mistakes and “corrupt” ties, and Clinton could only respond to these largely-true allegations that she was “experienced” and “qualified.” That’s not a very convincing rebuttal. Sanders, however, would have hit Trump back in a way that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t, and maybe, couldn’t. Sanders would bring the discussion right back to the issues — where he was much more articulate and legitimate than Donald Trump.

Trump could not have used the “corrupt” card on Sanders, and any time he did, Sanders would have turned it right back around on Trump, with strong effect. Trump could say Clinton was “bought,” and even if Trump himself was corrupt, he could still be some part correct when using this against Clinton. Against Sanders, however, it’s a different game. Sanders was clearly not bought. If Trump tried to say, or even just imply that Sanders was corrupt, Sanders would easily point out how his current campaign was funded by the grassroots, more than any other. And he has no such “Wall Street” speeches — he’s been calling out Wall Street and political corruption his entire career.

Sanders would then expose the lies about Trump’s campaign. Donald Trump’s campaign, compared to Hillary Clinton’s, could possibly be construed as “grassroots” and anti-establishment. But in comparison to Sanders’ campaign, Trump’s was nothing close to “grassroots” or anti-establishment. The contrast was there, and it would have been made clear. Trump’s campaign relied on big money and corporate interests, while Sanders didn’t.

On policy, Sanders had Trump beat across the board. While Donald Trump could pretend he was against free-trade deals “that devastated the economy” — and Clinton supported them — Clinton could not fully defend against that, because she did support those “terrible trade deals.” Sanders, however, could not only defend his past position on “free trade deals,” but make a better, more clear proposal on trade deals — a legitimately “populist” alternative. Sanders would say, with complete honesty and credibility, that we should “re-negotiate” our trade deals to help working people, rather than large multi-national corporations.

Same goes for all the other issues. On healthcare, college tuition, foreign policy, and virtually everything else, Sanders had the integrity to withstand Trump’s one-trick pony of claiming he is the “anti-establishment” candidate who will “drain the swamp.” While Hillary Clinton avoided substantive policy debates with Trump, instead pointing to her “good” character and political experience (versus Trump’s “bad” character and lack of political experience), Bernie Sanders would not have allowed the conversation to become about him. He would have always brought it back to the issues, just like he did against Hillary Clinton.

And if Sanders did ever decide to attack Trump on character, he once again had that route open — where Clinton did not. Sanders simply had the high ground on politics and character — he had authenticity, honesty, and integrity.

The only way to beat Bernie Sanders was actually something that might seem contradictory: to not attack him. Actually, to ignore him completely, which is part of why he lost the Democratic primary. Sanders was at his worst when he was unknown. But as he came under attack, he simply used his political high ground, and his alignment with the majority of Americans on their political positions, to win people over.

Trump would not have been able to ignore his opposition (narcissists find it nearly impossible to do this), and the Republicans and media would have tried attacking him — which would have only backfired due to the anti-establishment sentiment, and low favorability of Sanders’ attackers, in 2016. The media could not have ignored Bernie Sanders nearly as much as they did in the Democratic primary, when now, he’s one of the two general election candidates for president of the United States.

And Bernie Sanders would not have lost the support he already gained in the 2016 primaries. Again, the data showed Sanders with a strong lead over Trump throughout the 2016 primaries. For Bernie Sanders to lose to Donald Trump, he would have had to lose a significant amount of support in just a few months, and that is just incredibly unlikely.

Support for Sanders didn’t happen lightly. “One does not simply un-feel the bern,” said a recurring Sanders meme. And according to the data, previously reviewed in chapters one and two, the meme is correct. As is the one which says “I don’t see thousands of people switching from Bernie to Hillary.” (The reverse obviously happened, seeing that Sanders began the Democratic primary at a few percent in the polls.)

While surely there are people out there who would’ve genuinely changed their minds — and decided, after previously supporting Sanders, to not vote for him in the general election — this would have been a statistical anomaly. Except for the rare individual, Bernie Sanders’ base of support was not going to leave him for Donald Trump.

Where was Trump’s growth going to come from if not the huge margin who already said they preferred Sanders to Trump? A massive amount of Sanders supporters and Democrats in general would have had to defect to Donald Trump, which, as we will examine in this chapter, is highly unlikely.

It leads to one final explanation or excuse: these folks who made up the massive margin of support for Sanders over Trump would have stayed home on election day, handing the election to Trump. Sanders would have failed on a national level, so the argument goes, to “get out the vote.” Maybe he would have had overwhelming support, a skeptic will admit — but those voters wouldn’t have gone out to vote on election day, because they are largely composed of Millennials, or [insert reason here].

We will look at why this argument is spurious at best, and very likely wrong. The opposite is more likely true: Sanders would have increased turnout in comparison to Hillary Clinton. This is because, as previously discussed, more people felt they had someone to vote “for.” That includes Independents, who were largely disenfranchised from the Democratic primary and overwhelmingly preferred Sanders. It also includes Millennial voters, who voted for Sanders in the primary more than they voted for Trump and Clinton combined.

It would have been, among the broad electorate, more inspiring to vote for Sanders than Clinton — or Trump. Again, the counter-argument rests on an incredible leap of faith, and desperation. The anecdotal evidence in this chapter will corroborate, however, that Sanders supporters wouldn’t have simply stayed home in such great abundance that Trump could win.

Before we move forward, there’s one more counter-argument to beat into the ground. Sanders lost the Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton, so, how could he have beaten Trump?

Again — and again — and again — this was covered in previous chapters. Primary elections are not general elections, and have different voting blocs. For multiple reasons, the winner of a party primary is not automatically the best candidate for the general election. First, Sanders had a major advantage over Clinton among Independents — who make up a larger voting bloc than both Democrats and Republicans — and who were largely disenfranchised from the Democratic primaries.

Source: CBS News

Sanders also had a major polling advantage over Hillary Clinton in the swing states, which would decide the election — as explored in chapter one.

Also, as I explained in metaphor, Rock may lose to Paper, but it beats Scissors. Sanders simply would have been a better match-up versus Trump.

Finally — and it was the topic of my previous different report — the 2016 Democratic primaries were biased and undemocratic. Thus, Clinton winning over Sanders in the Democratic primary was not a reliable, honest representation of what the voters actually preferred — even if we’re just looking at the Democratic primary electorate. If you don’t want to read my previous report on the primary rigging, the below tweet sums it up well enough:


This chapter is a collection of explanations and anecdotes that show why Sanders would have beaten Donald Trump in a general election. It is not necessarily “data,” at least not in the scientific sense, nor is it absolute “proof.” But it is strong anecdotal evidence which supports the data from chapters one, two, and three — showing that Sanders, in an extremely high likelihood, would have beaten Donald Trump in 2016.

Let’s break it down into three sections:

  1. Strongest on the issues: fundamental vs. incremental (or undefined) change.
  2. Directly against Trump: integrity vs. fraudulence.
  3. The grassroots campaign: a movement vs. a candidate.

I. Bernie on the issues

It might have been difficult to know where Trump stood on the issues, because he often seemed to change his mind, and certainly his rhetoric. Much like Hillary Clinton, Trump would pander to his audience. However, he did seem to stand generally for “bringing back jobs,” tightening security at the border, and a few other issues. Still, Trump was not a candidate who cared a lot about policy, or distinguished much on it. He would rather speak generally about “making America great again.” Most everything else was incoherent, inconsistent, and/or vague.

Sanders was very clear on the issues, and the policies he advocated had the support of, first, the general electorate, and also, enough “experts” and existing models (mostly foreign countries) to make his policies credible.

Of course, experts will disagree with other experts, but Sanders had plenty behind him. And the electorate will disagree, too, on many things. But polls showed that more Americans supported Sanders’ policies than any other candidate. (We will look at those polls.)

Especially for what was probably Sanders’ biggest issue — getting “big money” out of the political system — this is something almost everyone wanted:

influence nyt.png
Source: NY Times

If you wanted to see most of Sanders’ policies, you could go to his campaign website — or, you can skim a list of what the majority of Americans support in public polls.

prefer progressive.png

Source In These Times


The above polling was conducted by the “Progressive Change Institute,” so if that makes you skeptical, here are some polls that are mainly from Gallup and Pew Research, two of the most reputable polling organizations.

See also that “The Economy,” in general, was shown by Gallup as the “most important problem facing the country today” that must be addressed by a 2016 candidate.

the economy.png

addressed by candidate economy.png

(Go to the link cited to see the full list. “The economy” is at the top spot among a host of “issues or challenges” that were polled.)

Bernie Sanders addressed “the economy” much more than Hillary Clinton did. Ironically, the Clinton campaign accused Bernie Sanders of being a “one-trick pony” — and what was that one “trick”? The economy. (Although it was false that Sanders “only cared about the economy,” it was certainly the best bet to care about if you wanted to win in 2016.)

Trump also addressed the “economy,” often. He addressed it much more vaguely than Sanders, but still, he talked a lot about “the economy” and “jobs.” It’s one reason why he cut up Clinton — but would have only scraped himself if he tried that against Sanders.

At the same time, as the general election drew near, Clinton and Trump were seen by a majority of voters as dishonest and untrustworthy.

Source: Gallup

A even stronger majority of voters said that neither Trump or Clinton “would make a good president.”

low hopes.png
Source: Gallup

If you were paying attention during this time and on social media, you could have seen an abundance of memes like these:


On the other hand, polls during the primary elections showed that “honesty” and “trustworthiness” were among Bernie Sanders’ strongest traits.

king of credibility 1.png
Source: The Hill
credibility 2.png
(The Hill)



And that was just the opinion of registered Democrats. Sanders was viewed even more favorably among Independents, as we saw in chapters one and two.

The bottom line is that Bernie Sanders knew what the big issues were, and even just according to public polls, he was on the majority’s side more than the other candidates. The broad electorate also saw Sanders as a more honest and credible politician than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders was not only good on the issues, and by far the most focused on them — he was someone we can actually trust to address them, to do what he’s been saying he will do.

Knowing this, and seeing all the positive poll data, and favorability trends for Sanders, it is an odd notion that Sanders’ support would suddenly go down after the primary election — even after the (broadly disliked) media and the (disliked almost as much as the media) Republicans “ramped up their attacks.”

To further discredit this theory of Sanders dropping in support — and/or Sanders being hurt by Donald Trump’s rhetoric — let’s look at how Sanders would have faced Donald Trump, directly, in front of the American people.

II. Sanders fights Trump

In May 2016, still during the primary elections, Donald Trump challenged Bernie Sanders to a public debate. This was an unusual move. Debates typically remain intra-party during the primary elections. But at this point, Clinton had declined to debate Sanders before the California primary, and Trump was easily set to win the Republican nomination. Donald Trump also said that a debate between him and Sanders “would have such high ratings.”

Sanders confidently accepted the debate.


And right after he did, Trump put up new terms. The debate must be done for $10 million, with the proceeds “going to charity.”

This was a purely political move, and Trump’s stated rationale was that “Bernie Sanders is not going to win the Democratic Party nomination.”

“I’d love to debate Bernie. The problem is he’s going to lose in the primary,” Trump said. So, as Trump was saying, there would have to be higher stakes for this “irrelevant” debate.

The Sanders campaign really wanted to debate Donald Trump on live television, for both the sake of Sanders’ candidacy, and also, to expose Donald Trump.


After issuing the challenge to Sanders, and then upping the stakes, Donald Trump ultimately backed out of the debate.

Source: Politico

Donald Trump’s own press release was later deleted from his website.

This is not a difficult equation to solve. Donald Trump was scared of debating Bernie Sanders. The reason why is that unlike Clinton, Sanders could maintain the moral high ground and keep the debate focused on issues rather than the “character” of the candidates. Trump may be wild, and incompetent in many ways, but he generally knows what will help or hurt his own image.

How would Sanders debate Trump? The same way he’s debated everyone: by relentless focus on the issues. He would bring up the problems that people are experiencing around the country, and some legitimate political solutions to those problems.


The two tactics used by Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton — his two main “strengths” — would not work on Bernie. The first tactic Trump used against Hillary Clinton was pointing out her political “corruption”: her ties to Wall Street, her sitting on the board of Wal-Mart, her suspect “speeches,” and her being “bought” by rich and powerful people (like him).

The second tactic Trump used against Hillary was pointing to major political blunders that she made in the past, on issues that the public was very concerned about in 2016. This includes support for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and “terrible trade deals” like NAFTA and TPP.  Bernie Sanders, however, did not make those major blunders. He was staunchly on the opposite side — the right side — of those issues.

See Clinton’s weakness below — which was one of Trump’s few tricks (but would not have worked on Sanders):

Source: BBC

Nor, remember, was Bernie under FBI investigation. Trump could make Clinton appear almost like a criminal in the debates, and have to defend her investigation. He couldn’t do that to Sanders.

Bernie Sanders would go much harder on Trump than he did on Clinton. In the debates between Hillary and Donald, you could easily come away believing that Hillary was corrupt and Donald was going to “fix” this corruption — and many people certainly did. This never would have happened to Sanders, with his consistent history, relentless focus on the issues, and truly grassroots campaign — as opposed to Trump’s mostly-manufactured “grassroots” campaign.

The media even reported that Bernie Sanders “won” the GOP debates (during the primary) and general election debates over Twitter.

Source: The Hill
CQqXpWRUEAA-Q1m.jpg large.jpg
(Fan art, but true)

In a general election, Donald Trump could not have dodged the debates with Bernie Sanders. Bernie would have exposed Donald Trump’s lies, live on national television, and through social media. And whenever they allowed Bernie Sanders on the mainstream news, which at this point they would’ve had to — he would have pulled the curtain on Trump again and again. To this day, now in January 2018, Sanders continues to be the single greatest opposition in Congress to Donald Trump and the Republican establishment.

The general election debates were bankrupt

Like I said, Trump turned the debates into a personality or corruption contest, and Hillary Clinton allowed it. Neither of the general election candidates cared deeply in their hearts about the issues, and it showed. It was actually a show about themselves — and in both camps, there would be no crossing of those who financed their campaigns.

barely poverty.png
The Hill
missing from debates.png
Source: Bill Moyers
no issues debates.png
(Bill Moyers)

no discussion on poverty or racism.png

There is no way Bernie Sanders would have let this happen. As we saw during the 2016 primary debates, Sanders frequently steered the conversation toward these issues — even when the questions were not asked — like when he said “Climate Change” was the biggest threat to national security. (Everyone expected to hear some country or another, or simply “terrorism.” That is how Clinton and Trump responded.)

We also saw that most people were upset with both choices for president, and wanted to hear the issues debated. People wanted the problems articulated, and solutions posed.

Trump articulated the problems vaguely, and his solution was simply to “make America great again.” But at least he had something. Clinton did not seem to believe there were major problems to be addressed. “America is already great,” she beamed. She also let us know that “America is great because America is good.”

That seems to suggest, like her entire campaign did, that nothing needs to change. Certainly nothing big needs to change. Nor can it. It is not needed. And if it is, it is not possible.

In 2016, fewer people were interested in the political drama anymore. Bernie Sanders’ support would not have dropped after the primary election because this is how he would have debated Trump:





III. The political revolution

Bernie Sanders had the “hope and change” of Barack Obama. And unlike Donald Trump, who would win by dividing people apart, Bernie Sanders would win by “bringing people together,” as he would often say we needed to do.

And unlike Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and virtually any other national politician — Bernie Sanders called for an entirely new way of politics — a fundamental shift in the way the political system works. And in his presidential campaign, he followed through. It was a glimpse of what the political revolution could be.

Bernie Sanders was not only more correct on the issues. He did not only have a strong and consistent history of good political judgment. He articulated, rightly, that we cannot wait for politicians to be our heroes. We must change the political system: by getting out the big money influence, and simultaneously, by bringing in the “small people” influence.

Bernie Sanders did this through a revolutionary way of campaign funding. And especially for the first half of his campaign, before the fundraising gained steam — it was volunteers and passionate supporters, not paid operatives and career political consultants, who propelled his campaign into view and viability. All of this against the odds — against the big money, and against the political and media machine.

Bernie Sanders was the candidate that so many had been waiting for. He was the candidate that so many hoped Obama would be. And he said it was not about him — it was about us. And we knew he meant it.

Unlike the others, he was “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

That’s inspiring. That’s powerful. And it does not simply fade away. Bernie’s campaign for president ended, of course, and he helped coalesce a movement that will continue beyond this day. But to look back at his presidential campaign is to get a glimpse of what he inspired — why his support wouldn’t have dropped, and why his voters wouldn’t have stayed home.

There were the rallies and marches…

There was the art…

art revolution.png

There were the homes, vehicles, walls and restaurants…

There were the cool and funny memes…

There were the inspirational and informational memes…

There was the endless, fan-made merchandise…

(T-shirts, tattoos, mugs, mousepads, sweaters, stickers — whatever — just google “Bernie Sanders merch.” It was all made within a year or two, and it never ends…)

Where were the Hillary Clinton cars, trucks, and houses? Where were her rallies, marches, parties, mugs, and t-shirts?

(Artist unknown)

Hillary Clinton was the establishment. She was “politics as usual,” and that was anything but inspiring. Bernie Sanders was something new, inspiring, and authentic. And it was what the nation wanted.

It was not his personality. It was his political history, his platform, and his deeper character that proved he was for real.

While Clinton was politics as usual, Donald Trump was no revolutionary, either. He was, though, an opportunist who presented himself as one.

Although Donald Trump did have a smaller, but very passionate following — in comparison to the enthusiasm of Sanders’ base, it was nothing. Trump’s “grassroots” campaign, in comparison to Sanders’ “grassroots” campaign, was not really grassroots.


Surprise: Trump lied about the size of his rallies. They were not as large as he said, and certainly not as big as the Sanders rallies. Trump did not inspire the kind of art, actions, and organization — or even the kind of creative “merchandise” that Bernie Sanders did. Trump’s campaign was powered by big money, not small donors. His problems and solutions were vague and shifting, as opposed to the specific demands and consistent principles of Bernie Sanders.


While Trump out-maneuvered Hillary Clinton in the general election — and actually would’ve lost if not for the electoral college — Sanders would have done a better job at turning out the vote than Hillary Clinton. And due to his greater poll numbers, in large part thanks to the massive Independent bloc which greatly preferred Sanders, we can be quite certain that Bernie would have won many of the swing states that Clinton lost. The reason is simple. Finally, a reason to vote. This guy is honest, and will represent us.

It was not just a belief in a candidate, either. It was a vote for a new political direction, and a new vision for the nation. It was a new idea — whose time had come — government will represent the people, not the rich and powerful.


There is no way Sanders’ support would have dropped so much in such a short amount of time that would have caused him to lose to Donald Trump in November. If any voters would have switched, it would have been Trump voters to Sanders voters, more than the reverse.

In the general election, in November 2016, to keep Sanders voters home on election day you would’ve had to tie them all down with a rope. Unlike Hillary Clinton’s voters, who, according to previously-explored data, a large amount voted for Hillary to “stop Donald Trump” — Sanders voters were much more invested in his positive message. In voting for Bernie Sanders.

Voting for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, for so many Americans, was going to the voting booth like it was a chore. And we know how eager people are about chores. Not very.

People would much rather do something they enjoy — like vote for someone who really represents them. Not just the rich and powerful.

>> Conclusion: Why it still matters

Quick Nav:
Intro | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Conclusion