The frontrunners in the Democratic and Republican primaries can rightfully proclaim that victory is in sight and breathe a sigh of relief after weeks of strain and tension. Both nominees knew that the polls in the smaller and less populous states, and even in Wisconsin, would not be in their favour (which is why neither of them spent much time or money on their campaigns in those states). But several weeks without a decisive lead and a media that interpreted this as a sign of things to come generated an alarming impetus. This was especially the case once the media began to take the main rivals (Ted Cruz in the case of Trump and Bernie Sanders in Hillary Clinton's case) seriously as potential contenders for the White House. This is why the primaries in New York marked a turning point, one that, moreover, might settle the results of the nomination process. New York is by far the most important state, not just because of its population density but because it is an international financial and commercial capital, and probably also because of the weight it carries in the worlds of art, literature, the media and, of course, politics. The “Big Apple”, with its famous stock exchange, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Metropolitan Opera House and Statue of Liberty, is unlike any other city in the world. To those familiar with the US, New York attests to being a world unto itself, and perhaps the most famous one in American cinema. But it is American in its idiosyncratic way. It is a kind of Noah's Ark in which all nations and ethnicities on earth have converged. One finds the wealthiest of the world's wealthy and, perhaps as well, the poorest of the poor, not just in the US but in the world. In a way, the primaries here encapsulated the whole process. Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner, is a “New Yorker” by birth and family fortune — Trump Tower is one of the landmarks of the city that never sleeps. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, is not a native New Yorker. She was born in Illinois and became Kansan by marriage to Bill Clinton. Yet when she decided to run for the Senate, she chose New York as her place of residence and home state. Over the years she has become an emblem of the East Coast “establishment” by dint of a lengthy political career in which she held several high offices, in addition to having served as “First Lady” for eight years and sustained a continuous involvement in civil society work. Therefore, perhaps the whole of the US turned its attention in the direction of the Empire State Building to see what the New York primaries would bring. This round was critical not just symbolically but also concretely, as the winner in each camp stood to gain a large number of delegates, large enough to bring them within reach of the magic number they need to become their party's presidential candidate. Both are around 400 delegates from their respective goals, but this constitutes 25 per cent of the 1,237 delegates that Trump needs and 20 per cent of the 2,383 delegates that Clinton needs to win in the Republican and Democratic conventions, respectively. New York is a major springboard for the key states, in terms of population and delegates, in the northeast, including Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey. This is before heading westward to California, the largest and richest state, although most likely the question will be settled before then, at least with regard to Clinton. She can clear the finishing line more quickly than Trump, as the contest in his party is more complicated. Even if he secures the magic number of delegates he has to persuade the rest of party to accept this “majority”. Under normal circumstances that would not be difficult. The party traditionally goes with the majority. But in this case, the antagonism between Trump and the Republican Party establishment is strong enough to cast doubts on his prospects, although it is also doubtful that the party would risk rejecting Trump and nominate Cruise, because then the Republicans would certainly lose in the presidential elections. The New York primaries brought forward the confrontation between Clinton and Trump, both of whom will use the upcoming primaries as a means give an early kick-start to their campaigns for the November elections. Both candidates have begun to urge “unity of party ranks” because they know that without the core party bases behind them they will not stand a chance. But the “unity” they seek is not easily achieved these days. In the Democratic Party there is a sizeable bloc of voters that oppose Clinton, and the same applies to the Republican Party with respect to Trump. Clinton, at least from the perspective of Sanders' supporters, stands for everything evil in the US, from Wall Street and the political clout of big money and major corporations, from which the senator gets $250,000 for every speech or lecture she delivers to the city's wealthy, to her embodiment of the governmental institution that has approved all the laws and legislation that sold the US to the rich. Trump is seen by all his Republican rivals as the man who will drive their party to the pits and prevent it from reaching the White House for the next eight years. Trump is not just from outside the Republican Party establishment, his impetuous and hare-brained ideas risk alienating the US's allies in NATO and Japan, and his bigoted stances on Latinos and Muslims have lowered America's standing on the international moral scale. Trump turned the US elections into an arena of unrestrained vulgarity and mudslinging that did not leave even the rivals' wives and other family members unscathed. Still, it looks like Clinton and Trump will be battling it out for the presidency. It has often been a source of pride in the US that the presidential race has always expressed the greater political middle ground. The pendulum may swing back and forth, from right to left, but never so far as the ultra-right or ultra-left. Presidential candidates have always hailed from the “establishment” that produces the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, state governors and senior executive officials. The situation is different this time. True, Clinton is a representative of the establishment par excellence. More significantly, with the New York results, she defeated one of the foremost challengers to the executive even if he is only a senator, representing the small state of Vermont. Trump, on the other hand, is miles away from the US establishment. Although he is a member of the economic/financial part of that establishment, with a personal fortune of an estimated $10 billion, his ideas — a kind of special concoction of neoliberal and ultraconservative notions — are ultimately radical and extremist. In all events, in the forthcoming months a rich and exciting debate will unfold and it will shape the contours of the future of the US and perhaps the entire world. The writer is chairman of the board, CEO, and director of the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies.
