Bernie Sanders is the junior US Senator from Vermont and an avowed socialist.  He's a balding, white-haired and 74 years old.  He's not young or fiery. He's nobody's idea of a left-wing, radical revolutionary.

Last May, Senator Sanders announced his candidacy for the Democrat nomination for President. It seemed a fool's errand.   Hillary Clinton seemed virtually unstoppable. Even if she wasn't, who was going to vote for a socialist?

My first reaction to Bernie's candidacy was, "Awww-isn't that cute?  An elderly, white-haired socialist is running for President.  Golly, it's really true-anyone can grow up to run for President.  Is this a great country, or what?"

I didn't believe Bernie had a chance in helck of winning the Democrat nomination.  I almost expected him to campaign from his walker, make a brave show of it, take a nap and quickly fade from the fray.

I was wrong.

Bernie Sanders and his bid for the presidency are for real.

He wasn't intimidated by Hillary.  He didn't fade, lose heart or get caught napping.  Remarkably, inconceivably, he began to close the gap in the polls between himself and Hillary.  In some polls he began to beat Hillary.

Senator Sanders' success wasn't merely the result of some college kids having fun.  Bernie's support is widespread.

Bernie's supporters have not only voted for him in the polls-they've also contributed so many small donations (average of $30 each) to Bernie's campaign that he's raised almost as much money as Hillary's $30 million.

More, Hillary received most of her money from PACs, the wealthy elite, and fundraisers organized by various "big shots".

But, Bernie's not taking money from PACs or the wealthy elite.  His contributions are all coming from the "little guys".

By taking contributions only from "little guys," Bernie demonstrates a degree of commitment to "de common folk" that no other politician can match.  According to some reports, Bernie may actually be an honest man.  Evidence of a candidate being honest has to attract some voters.

While Hillary holds "intimate meetings" with a few dozen people in roadside diners, Bernie Sanders is holding rallies that draw over 20,000 screaming, cheering fans and supporters.

If you judge political campaigns by the size of candidate rallies, Bernie Sanders might be the most popular candidate in the presidential race.

*   I've been surprised, amazed, and even befuddled, by Bernie's success.

I suppose that Hillary must be shocked, astonished and even a little terrified, by Bernie's success.  Who could imagine that Hillary Clinton could be beaten or even challenged by some socialist who was seven years older than she is?

Something incomprehensible seemed to be happening in American politics:  an elderly, avowed socialist was doing well in the A.D. 2016 presidential primaries.

It seemed impossible

*  I couldn't wrap my mind around the Sanders "phenomenon" until a few days ago when I saw an article by Michael Snyder entitled, "Right Now There Are 102.6 Million Working Age Americans That Do Not Have A Job".

In that article Mr. Snyder observed:

102.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now.

"That is not an economic recovery - that is an economic depression of an almost unbelievable magnitude."

Yes, yes, yes . . . 102.6 million working age Americans without jobs is an "economic depression of an almost unbelievable magnitude".  Yes, we all get that.  Now, we're really in deep, economic do-do.

But the real implication of 103 million unemployed Americans goes far beyond whether we are or aren't in an "economic depression of almost unbelievable magnitude".  The real implication of 103 million unemployed is that we may be on the verge of a political revolution of "an almost unbelievable magnitude".

* 103 million unemployed equals nearly one-third of the total American population.  Subtract America's 75 million children (who aren't eligible to vote) from the overall population of 320 million, and we have a remainder of 245 million eligible voters-over 40% of which do not currently have jobs.

How many people voted Republican in the last presidential election?  61 million.

How many people voted Democrat?  66 million.

If there are currently 103 million unemployed Americans, that's almost 70% more than the total number of votes received by Mitt Romney (remember him?) in A.D. 2012.

Who do you suppose the vast majority of the 103 million unemployed will vote for in A.D. 2016?

Q: Wil the 103 million unemployed vote for Donald Trump-who is entertaining and inspiring with promises of a "return to greatness" but, otherwise, has nothing to offer the poor and currently unemployed?

A: I don't think so.

Q: What about voting for some other Republican who has nothing for the poor/unemployed other than the "trickle-down theory" where, first, government gives more money to the already rich and then, when they spend it, some of it will "trickle-down" to the middle class and poor.? 

The trickle-down theory is stupid.  The rich already have money, lots of it, and virtually none of it is trickling down to the poor.  Why would anyone suppose that by giving even more money to the rich, any significant portion of that new money would then "trickle down" to the poor?

Q: Will the 103 million unemployed vote for Hillary Clinton or some other Democrats who are bought and paid for by the same oligarchs who've bought and paid for most Republican candidates?

A: Not if there's a better alternative.

Q: Will that 103 million unemployed vote for Bernie Sanders, who (despite being a "socialist") promises to tax the rich and give it to the poor?

A: When you stop to think about it, the answer to this question is a no-brainer.

The 103 million unemployed are going to vote for the man who promises to put a chicken in every pot.  They're going to vote for a modern Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a newer New Deal.

They're going to vote for Bernie Sanders.

They're going to support Sanders passionately and financially.

And, that's why Bernie is (almost) out-polling Hillary.

That's why Bernie is attracting enough small financial contributions from hundreds of thousands (soon millions) of "little guys" to rival the campaign contributions from "big guys" to Hillary.

That's why Bernie is drawing crowds in excess of 20,000 more than a year before the next election.

Q: Can you remember many other candidates for President in any previous elections who could draw a crowd of over 20,000 more than a year before the election? 

A: I can't. Ohh, there may have been some incumbent Presidents running for his second (Ronald Reagan) or third (FDR) term of office who was so well-liked that he could draw 20,000 people to a rally more than a year before the next election.  However, when thinking about "rank and file" presidential candidates who were largely unknown to the American people, who had ever before attracted 20,000 supporters 13 months before the next election?  Other than Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, I can't think of anyone else.

More questions:

Can you name any candidate, other than Bernie Sanders, who has anything substantial to promise the 103 million unemployed? 

I can't.

Can you name any significant voting bloc who has more reason to support a candidate more passionately than the 103 million unemployed have to support Bernie Sanders? 

I can't.

Can you name any other voting bloc that's even half as large as the 103 million unemployed who can be motivated to support rank-and-file Democrat or Republican candidates? 

I can't.

How many hardcore, lifelong Democrats are also unemployed right now?  How many more are likely to be unemployed by the time we hold the next election?  Given the choice between voting again for a party-line Democrat and voting for the new socialist candidate, how many unemployed Democrats will break ranks and vote socialist?

What about the blacks and Hispanics who routinely vote Democrat?  Given their high numbers of unemployed in next year's election, will they vote Democrat or socialist?

I'll bet that 25% of current Democrats could vote socialist in A.D. 2016.  And I might be underestimating that percentage.

How many hardcore, lifelong Republicans are also unemployed right now?  How many more are likely to be unemployed by the time we hold the next election?  Given the choice between voting again for the party-line Republican candidate and voting for the new socialist candidate, how many unemployed Republicans will break ranks and vote socialist?

Not many.

Nevertheless, I'll bet that at least 20% of our current Republicans will be unemployed by next year's election.  I'll bet that all of them will at least be tempted to do the unthinkable and vote socialist.

And that's why I'm beginning to see that-OMG!-Bernie Sanders is not merely a credible candidate for next year's presidential election-he could soon be favored to win!

*  I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

No, really.  I'm not kidding.  I really am shocked.  The implications are huge-we could soon see an avowed "socialist" elected President.

Of course, this country became socialist with the onset of the New Deal in the 1930s (which, incidentally, happened during the Great Depression and in response to a huge number of unemployed Americans).  But, until now, who (besides a handful of crackpots) has run for the presidency as an openly avowed "socialist"?  Virtually no one. (Until now, American socialism has, for both Democrats and Republicans, been on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis.)

*  I won't vote socialist. I won't vote for Bernie Sanders.

Even so, I have to admit that I admire Sanders.  I disagree with his politics, but I still understand that his philosophy might be "an idea whose time has come".

America's socialists ruled from the onset of the New Deal in the 1930s until they finally went too far in the 1970s. How'd they go too far? Roe vs. Wade (A.D. 1973) legalized abortion and inspired the "moral majority," and the Viet Nam war ended in defeat (A.D. 1975).

Unfortunately, that "moral majority" of the 1980s gave way to the neo-conservative (neo-con) professional politicians who, arguably, later gave way to today's immoral neo-fascists.

And now, after the last 20 years under the neo-fascists, the fascists have gone too far, taken too much money for the rich, created a police state, shipped industries and jobs overseas, and left 103 million Americans high, dry and unemployed. 

During the neo-fascist's rule, the distribution of income has become so skewed in favor of the elite that, according to a Forbes magazine article ("Average America vs the One Percent"),

"The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, compared to the average income of the rest of the population, which is around $51,000.

"The real disparity between the classes isn't in income, however, but in net value: The top 1 percent are worth about $8.4 million, or 70 times the worth of the lower classes.

"Within this top 1 percent is an even smaller and wealthier subset of people, 1 percent of the top, or .01 percent of the entire nation. Those people have incomes of over $27 million, or roughly 540 times the national average income. Altogether, the top 1 percent control 43 percent of the wealth in the nation; the next 4 percent control an additional 29 percent."

Which means that America's top 5% own or control 72% of America's wealth-and the bottom 95% own or control just 28% of that wealth.  That disparity will not be allowed to persist.

Thanks to a combination between the neo-cons, neo-fascists, multinational-corporations and the super-rich-the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is being wiped out, multinational corporations continue to prosper and the super-rich are getting richer.

* How do the rich get richer? 

By working harder and smarter? 

Not exactly. 

They get richer by bribing Congressmen and Senators to broker new laws that allow the rich to "legally" predate on the consumers of the poor and middle class.

We call these bribes "political campaign contributions," but they're really bribes.  The Supreme Court has declared political campaign contributions to be constitutionally-protected "expressions of political free speech"-but they're really just bribes.

Those who already wealthy enough to bribe the Congress and the Senate can get laws passed to legalize the financial exploitation of the poor and middle class.  Those who aren't wealthy enough to bribe Congressmen will find themselves being further impoverished by the laws brokered by Congress on behalf of the rich.

I'm not arguing that the "evil rich" have oppressed the "noble poor". Under the Democrats' post-FDR power, the "noble poor" (sometimes in the guise of labor unions; sometimes as politicians) did their level-best to gut the rich. From the 1930s through the 1970s, the political majority was composed of left-wing Democrats who relished their power to exploit the rich.

The rich recoiled, established PACs, and for the past 35 years have used their wealth to bribe and corrupt politicians to support the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.

A class warfare of the sort Marx advocated has been going on in this country for at least a century. In the early 1900s, the rich ruled until they went too far and precipitated the Great Depression. Galvanized by massive unemployment, the poor and middle-class assumed power under FDR and ruled from the 1930s through the 1970s. In the 1970s, the Democrats finally went too far with legalized abortion and laid the foundation for resurgence of the Republican Party.

Then the Republicans ruled (mostly) from the 1980s to present-when they, too, have finally gone too far with enormous wealth distribution disparity and correlative massive unemployment.

Now, driven by massive unemployment, we may see the Democrats once again gain power and relegate Republicans to the status of an "also-ran" party. Bernie Sanders just might be the man to lead that revolution.

* I'm not saying that either political party or economic class is inherently right or wrong. I'm certainly not saying that either political party is inherently good. Both parties, all parties, when they achieve power are greedy, immoral and prone to treason.

I'm saying that both parties and all economic classes are ultimately stupid in that they never know when to say "enough". They never really want justice for all. They want advantage and privilege (for themselves). As a result, both parties have a death wish to keep pushing and pushing for more unearned wealth and power until they finally do something so ridiculously immoral (abortion, wealth disparity, police state, massive unemployment, etc.) that they precipitate their own destruction.

* One of the consequences of today's neo-fascists bribing politicians is an enormously unbalanced distribution of income.  By itself, that inequality is cause for concern. However, there's another consequence of American neo-fascists' support of corporate profits and the top 1%'s wealth:  massive unemployment. As the rich get richer, the poor don't merely become poorer-they become increasingly unemployed. Massive income inequality causes massive unemployment.

It's one thing to pass laws that leave a man poor.  It's another thing, and far worse, to leave a man unemployed.  Without a job, the poor are left without hope.

Our government's neo-fascism, corporatism and support for super-elite ("too big to fail") oligarchy have worked to leave 103 million Americans unemployed.  Those unemployed are forced by their poverty to do "something" to rectify their financial position.  That "something" might be criminal; it might even be revolutionary. 

If socialism and Bernie Sanders appear to offer the most viable solution to massive unemployment, income distribution disparity and an increasingly unbridled police-state, then, guess what?  Most of that 103 million Americans will not only vote, they'll fight for Bernie Sanders to become President.

* Regardless, in the today's context, the neo-fascists have gained power from the neo-cons and moral majority and have increasingly exploited the poor and middle class for most of 30 years.  In doing so, the neo-fascists created so many exploited and impoverished people that there are now 103 million unemployed who'd be delighted to strike a blow against neo-fascism.

Pretty sweet, hmm?  We're seeing some justice.  By supporting the injustice of out-sourcing industries and jobs and jobs to foreign countries, fostering a police state and enriching the rich, and rendering 103 million unemployed, America's neo-fascists have devised the means of their own destruction.

*  If there are 103 million unemployed Americans, Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign may signal a radical, revolutionary change in American politics. This potential revolution might turn out to be reminiscent of the French Revolution of the late 18th Century, the Bolshevik Revolution of A.D. 1917 or the New Deal of the 1930s-all of which were primarily fueled by massive unemployment, widespread poverty and the elite's attitude of "let them eat cake".

If so, this next American revolution will be fed by multinational corporate profits; an income distribution scheme that's not merely unjust, but suicidal; a growing police state to protect the rich-and massive unemployment.

* For now, Bernie Sanders is the natural leader of the 103 million unemployed.

If Bernie continues to do well in the Democrat Debates, he just might be our next FDR.  If he does poorly, his campaign may falter. All that remains to be seen.

Nevertheless, in the current Bernie Sanders campaign, we just might be witnessing the onset of a political revolution of historic proportions.

Hang onto your straw hats.