Even more importantly, by replacing Wall Street with small business as capitalism’s true avatar, Clinton makes a class-based analysis of politics all but impossible. And this, really, is the essence of the Clinton/Sanders split. If capitalism has no inherent characteristics or motivations — if a mom-and-pop has just as much of a claim to True Capitalism as Goldman Sachs — then it follows that there is also no definite kind of capitalist. Which might explain why Clinton generally refrains from talking about a generalized “1 percent.”
In this sense, the answers Clinton and Sanders gave, respectively, to the debate’s final question (“Which enemy are you most proud of?”) may be just as revealing as their back-and-forth over capitalism. While both candidates mentioned the pharmaceutical industry, Sanders included Wall Street whereas Clinton said “the Republicans” instead. You may think the difference is incidental, but it isn’t. Sanders is campaigning against an entire class and economic system; Clinton is campaigning against conservatives.
And, to a significant degree, the contest between the two will hinge on which group — wealthy capitalists or conservative Republicans — Democratic voters see as the bigger threat. (Source)
In other words, the nomination hinges on whether most Democrats see this nomination in terms of a tribal culture war or in terms of trying to change the rules that govern the economy. Smart money is on that the first will win the nomination, but I still have some hope that Bernie might be the guy to make it the second and that the country is both frustrated enough with the status quo and sophisticated enough to see that Hillary just means more of the conventional bland same. As soon as it becomes clear that Hillary is the sure winner, I lose all interest in this election.