Showing posts with label Voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voting. Show all posts

Monday, March 14, 2016

Inevitability Deferred

Two weeks ago, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton appeared poised on the edge of inevitability. The hoped-for certainty was delayed and possibly even eliminated by equivocal results on Super Tuesday. Primary results since then have done nothing to vault either candidate into their respective parties's thrones.

Clinton has been surprisingly challenged by Bernie Sanders, who made a good showing on March 1st but not enough to convince any public observers that he had a long-term chance. Nevertheless, he has continued to win primaries alongside Clinton. She leads only marginally in pledged delegates and her aura of inevitability is sustained only by a horde of super delegates whose loyalty is not guaranteed.

More importantly, as some observers have noted, she continues to win states that the GOP will most likely win in the Fall, while Sanders wins states that will be more likely to vote Democrat or sit on the fence. And Sanders has the following and the energy to turn out a lot of young new voters to secure those states for the Democratic party.

Trump's own ascent has been frustrated. Indeed, the only reason he may win out in the end is because his opponents have failed to unite. Should they do so after tomorrow, it will probably be too late. He appears likely to win all but one of the winner-take-all states, with Ohio still a possibility. Should he lose Ohio to Kasich, it will make little difference because Kasich trails him more significantly than Cruz. Trumps lead will grow despite such a loss. He will continue to approach the minimum needed for an uncontested nomination in July.

However, the ugliness of the GOP primary circus has not been alleviated. Violence has erupted in and around Trump rallies. While this has preoccupied many observers, there is no sign yet that it has turned off any of Trump's supporters.

Tomorrow may very well be the day that March 1st promised to be for Trump. As for Clinton, she desperately needs some quality wins tomorrow to prove once and for all that Sanders is not a viable candidate, giving her the opportunity to turn her political weaponry against the GOP early as her nomination becomes a fait accompli.

Monday, February 29, 2016

The Eve of Inevitability

Super Tuesday is upon us and each side of the election process, Republican and Democrat, is nearing the point of inevitability. Trump only needs to do moderately well tomorrow to acquire the last bit of momentum needed toward the Republican nomination. Hillary Clinton, after a landslide victory in South Carolina on Saturday, is ready to put down the Socialist threat and claim the democratic throne.

How did these elevations occur? A lot of people doubted one or the other possibility, even after early victories by these two contenders for the US Presidency.

Trump's Path to Ascendancy

Naysayers in the Republican party doubted, and liberals feared, Trump's chances from the very beginning. That he had a strong and devoted following was never contested. However, he had what was an apparently firm ceiling of 30-35% support among likely voters. Surely, thought his legion opponents, the party would eventually coalesce behind an establishment candidate and send this reality-TV star packing.

But this did not happen. And, really, by the time that this need to stop Trump became truly obvious, there were not many establishment candidates left. After the Iowa caucus, people looked to Jeb Bush and his uninspired campaign to stop the push for an outsider. But Jeb's number's hadn't left single digit support since the previous fall. For all the money that he had spent (over $100 million), Jeb had generated very little support. If you were one of Jeb's supporters before he left the race last week, you should feel flattered. He probably spent thousands of dollars just on you.

Besides Jeb. there was only Rubio, the junior senator from Florida. Cruz, Carson and Kasich could hardly be called establishment candidates and they each had a non-trivial portion of the republican vote. Cruz had even won Iowa, though there remain questions about the accuracy of the results from that caucus.

The establishment never had a chance. The truth is that there are not and never were going to be enough votes for any of the establishment candidates. The people supporting Cruz, Kasich and Carson were themselves troubling signs of cracks in the GOP foundation. Trump's ascendancy is due to the flood pouring in through those cracks.

High Hillary

For a while, it looked like Sanders really had some momentum. Even a cynical old bastard like me, who would never vote for a man who backed down so cowardly in the face of an interrupting BLM protest, was moved by his America campaign ad.


There was one major problem with the ad. It was super-white. I noticed this right away but I assumed that Clinton would have a hard time motivating black voters this time around. She did not. She certainly is not generating Obama levels of black voter participation but she is getting more than enough apparently. And this voting bloc was not enthused about Sanders' message. Like other democratic voting blocs, they wanted to know what politicians are going to give them specifically and Sanders' union background and free college offer was not considered relevant enough to black Americans, if the statements of leaders like John Lewis are representative.

So we head into Super Tuesday with several candidates holding on to slim hopes for a last-minute surprise. However, Trump and Clinton appear to be riding juggernauts toward a November showdown.

Monday, February 15, 2016

Republican Herd Stubbornly Refuses to Be Culled

As the contest in South Carolina approaches, I am amazed by the number of republican candidates that still hold on to some shred of an idea that they may pull this thing off and win the nomination. Of course, I admire their tenacity and respect the fact that they have some reason to cling to hope. This has been a season of unexpected events.

Not many people took the candidacy of Donald Trump very seriously when this campaign season began a year ago. No one took Bernie Sanders seriously then either but he has also made his potential for winning the Democratic candidacy very obvious, with unexpectedly strong support from more than just the youth vote. A number of lesser republican candidates have similarly experienced support that even they may not have believed possible.

Who would have expected that Jeb Bush would be fighting just to stay in contention? That Chris Christie and Rick Perry would already be out of the race after experiencing such national popularity as vocal and successful republican executives? Scott Walker was a major contender for this election a year ago and now hardly anyone remembers that he was in the race.

Instead, we have a junior Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, contending for the candidacy with much more support than Jeb. We also have a Texan Senator, Ted Cruz, despised by apparently all of his colleagues, also challenging the unlikely billionaire front-runner, Donald Trump. Meanwhile, everyone is wondering if a neophyte neurosurgeon, Ben Carson, will make a comeback and regain his prior strong support for the nomination.

Given this background, you can't blame anyone for thinking that they might win. Nevertheless, I still blame George Pataki. Thankfully, he finally retired his run for the nomination several weeks ago.

With less than a week until the South Carolina decision, Trump remains in the lead. In fact, has increased his support, much to the chagrin of the media which still likes to trumpet headlines about the Donald's nonexistent losses. Immediately after the last debate, which media pundits claimed was a huge loss for Trump, they ran headlines saying that he had suffered terrible losses. Nevertheless, polls taken the following day showed the billionaire even more solidly in the lead.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

On This Wintry Iowa Caucus Eve

'Twas the night before caucus, and all through the House (of Representatives),
Not a politician was stirring, not even to grouse.
Overcome with fear of status quo nightmare,
They hoped that some solution would soon be there.


Hope is the key term tonight. Both the democratic and republican establishments are a little stunned right now. For months, they have waited for the initial excitement traditionally given to political newcomers to wear off and allow the tried-and-true insiders to take the lead. They got their wish with Ben Carson, whose foibles and inadequacies were exposed in the long, hard grind from last summer to the Iowa present.

But this return to the mean just hasn't happened with Trump and with Sanders. Trump has held onto a lead which he only briefly shared with Ben Carson. Sanders has actually climbed up from decent also-ran numbers to a shockingly competitive level of interest among likely Iowa voters. In New Hampshire, he leads.

Heads are spinning in Washington and elsewhere. To tell the truth, even I am surprised. I have referenced Jeb's money on several occasions with the open belief that his treasure chest would carry him through to the end. Only in my most secret nihilist dreams did I think that one of these two upstarts would cause some interesting chaos in primary season. I never expected to have both of them pissing off the nancy boys in their respective parties.

Still, it's not over till the fat lady sings. In question are not just the sincerity of Trump supporters to to turn out and vote on Monday night, but a possible snow storm will complicate matters even more. Candidates like Cruz have die hard supporters that will show no matter what and Clinton has an establishment network ready to work the party machinery and clinch the nomination for her.

A lot is at stake tomorrow night in Iowa. Will we have revolution or will we succumb to traditional party politics?

Saturday, January 16, 2016

The Iowa Caucus Approacheth!

Since the beginning, this blog has focused on the numbers more than the quality of the candidates. Hopefully, that can begin to change as hordes of candidates drop out of the race.

For the democrats, the nature of the coming battle is essentially decided.There is the status quo candidate in Hillary Clinton and the radical left candidate in Bernie Sanders. Personally, I have despised Sanders since he played pussy to the BLM protesters back in August. However, I am glad that he is on stage because I have long felt that the hard left of the Democratic Party has been ignored.

Both parties today are really amalgams of groups which have little in common. Clinton represents the status quo party but Sanders represents the significant segment of society that thinks that America is long overdue for socialist reforms. In fact, I have a crush on him simply because some of what he says resembles my dreams when I was a young democrat who still believed that the party represented blue-collar workers and their families. However, walking away from pond scum that should have been sent packing at that meeting in August soured whatever lingering sympathy I had for him. I am not interested in an America in which rude BLM protesters have any say.

On the republican side, the equation is only starting to become clear. While some are already calling for a Trump fait accompli, I am more cautious and, as always, remember the power of money, of which Bush has a lot.

Nevertheless, things have become more clear. At the very least, that fucking zombie candidate George Pataki has dropped out. His continuing candidacy was a sign that the republican party was still playing around and not getting serious about the election. The number of real republican candidates can now be counted on one hand:


  • Donald Trump. Liberals long discounted the seriousness of his campaign because they are unable to imagine a world in which people do not agree with their views on some visceral level. In the minds of liberals, conservatives would agree with them if only they would engage in dialogue. Trump's ongoing popularity may finally be beginning to show libs that some Americans are simply out to get them, with no apologies.
  • Ted Cruz. Long seen as an unofficial ally of Trump's, Cruz is starting to distinguish himself from the billionaire by courting evangelicals. He is increasingly looking like the hard-right Christian candidate, though his eligibility to be POTUS is even more in question than Obama's.
  • Ben Carson. His star is definitely falling and I do him a favor just including him on this list. The era of white-guilt voting is over. Carson will not be the GOP candidate unless somebody literally kills three or four other candidates.
  • Marco Rubio. The press tried hard to give the candidacy to this young Latino months ago but his appeal has waned. He is not the Christian candidate and he is not the white-anger candidate. In the GOP today, this means - no votes for you!
  • Chris Christie. I am not a fan but but I commend him for sticking it out, fighting his way up from the kiddie table debates to be included in the final selection. He actually has more merit than many candidates in that he has held executive office and acted as a national figure for years now.

Notice that I forgot Jeb Bush? Okay, I admit that this was intentional. I do not want another member of the ruling Clinton-Bush-Obama dynasty to win but I actually think that his chances are decent. Money talks and Bush can hang in there for months to come. It does not matter if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire. He has the cash to wait in the wings and exploit any chaos in the electoral process to his own advantage.

Saturday, December 5, 2015

GOP Candidates Slogging Their Way Into Winter

As much of the Midwest, a hotbed for Republican politics, was snowed in or iced over this last week, the slightly less numerous candidates for the GOP presidential nomination reached the end of the beginning in their election campaigns. Just two months to go until the Iowa caucus voices America's first decision with regard to each candidate's legitimacy.

There are not quite so many of them now and the dynamics have changed somewhat. Donald Trump is still a leader among them but his primary rival of just a few weeks ago, Ben Carson, has seen his star decline a little. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have gained significant support in the polls. Jeb Bush has remained hobbled with single-digit poll numbers while some others, such as Bobby Jindal, have given up in the face of nearly non-existent support. Unbelievably, George Fucking Pataki is still officially in this race.

Here are the candidates that remain believably in this race. While Jeb Bush's numbers suggest he should possibly bow out, I will continue to include him. As I have stated before, his money can keep him in this race while he waits for one disaster or another to overtake his less-milquetoast competitors so that his blandness can finally shine.


  1. Donald Trump continues to lead the pack with percentage of support somewhere in the mid-twenties. It depends on where and when you poll. Some polls have shown him briefly as high as the low 40s but these gains seem to be ephemeral. Furthermore, the Donald continues to say things that alienate, at least for a time, his less entrenched supporters. For example, he has come out in support of waterboarding and apparently made fun of a handicapped reporter's disabilities during a press conference.
  2. Ben Carson has been brought down a few notches, particularly as a result of various statements he has made with regard to religious topics. He has said openly that Muslims should be prevented form holding the Presidency and he was ridiculed for speculating that the pyramids of Egypt were for holding grain rather than the corpses of deceased Pharaohs. In general, someone has made a point of degrading Carson's intelligence. I suspect that this was Trump, who has frequently bullied people with regard to their intelligence. Just look at the way that he hounded Perry out of the race.
  3. Marco Rubio has certainly made a run for Golden Boy if not for the presidency. Some competent work in the debates has brought the spotlight to this young senator for Florida. In addition, his willingness to take on his former mentor, Jeb Bush, has earned him kudos from some voters.
  4. It has been said in some circles that Trump is really running interference for Ted Cruz. The idea, apparently, is that Trump will eventually drop out and his supporters will have nowhere else to go but the Cruz camp. By then, Rand Paul and other potential recipients of Trumps support will have all dropped out. Whether or not such a conspiracy exists, things may play out that way. Cruz rivals Rubio now for 3rd place.
There is still a pack of others but there viability is lessening. Carly Fiorina has not made any headlines recently. Jeb Bush is still a gelding among stallions at this point. Chris Christie has managed to stir the pot with regard to certain statements made by Donald Trump but he has repeatedly replied that he is getting sick of being asked about Trump. He should be wary of getting what he wished for. The Donald is the only issue that gets him in the news.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

The Democratic Debate: Tag Teaming Hillary Clinton

The Democratic debate rolled around again and it was a little more interesting this time because there were only three candidates on stage, the other likely contenders having resigned from the race. While this potentially created the opportunity to just increase the focus on the two ongoing leaders, Clinton and Sanders, it probably provided much more attention for Martin O'Malley, who was practically invisible prior to last night.

Diverse They Ain't

I have mentioned before that the Republican field of candidates is much more diverse than the Democrats' round up of the usual suspects this time around. A picture of the three contenders looks more like a klan rally than anything else.

OK, maybe that's a little unfair. After all, these three are only "white" in the very loose definition of race that exists today. Sanders is, after all, Jewish and O'Malley is Irish. The Irish were not really considered white even a century ago. Remember who was building the railroads alongside blacks and the Chinese in the 19th century?

Nevertheless, the GOP does come off with more points for diversity this time around. They've got multiple hispanics, a very viable black candidate and a woman.

How They Did

Hillary Clinton

  • The other Democrats finally took off the gloves and lashed out at Hillary. Many analysts have stated previously that Hillary was going to run away with this nomination unless somebody manned up and started criticizing her. 
  • Both Sanders and O'Malley were able to take the high ground diplomatically because neither of them can be tied to voting for the Middle East debacle. Clinton joined with other Democrats to vote for the controversial invasion of Iraq which undeniably led to the present chaos in that region  and in Europe.
  • They were also not afraid to bring up her ties to Wall Street. However, most seem to agree that her defense was adequate. Still, it was a defense and it shows that Clinton is no longer untouchable. She is going to have to defend herself if she is going to get this nomination.
Bernie Sanders


  • The biggest advance for Sanders came simply with his willingness to attack Clinton's record. Providing this contrast will undoubtedly improve his long-range chances of taking an electoral lead. 
  • He failed to utilize the email issue, though, and that is perhaps Clinton's greatest weakness. This sort of cooperation among the candidates stinks and leads me to wonder if the race isn't simply an opportunity for Clinton to air out a lot of issues publicly and make voters bored of them before her cakewalk to the national election.
  • Sanders also did not look good when Clinton ridiculed his idea of free college for everybody. She pointed out that this policy would use taxpayer money to pay for Donald Trump's kids to go to school. Hopefully that is the end of that piece of idiocy,
Martin O'Malley
  • Martin O'Malley wins big simply for having a lot of face time with the public. This was a great opportunity for voters to hear an option to Sanders and Clinton. He presents a major threat to these other two simply by showing up and potentially leeching off undecided or less fervent voters. 
  • He also joined in the attacks on Clinton. He called her a flip-flopper on gun control.
  • In particular, he benefits by having had nothing to do with her war record and her participation in regime changes, such as that in Libya which has obviously destabilized the country.

I am not a Democrat but I can say that the democratic race is finally starting to look exciting. It seemed like Clinton was locking up the race when Sanders asked everyone to ignore her email dilemma. She may still run away with this one but there is at least the appearance of a real race at the moment. That will probably improve the ratings and, after all, that is all American culture really has any more: Facebook likes and Twitter hashtags.

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Two Conflicting Sentiments in American Politics

A few years ago, something occurred during a biology class that I was taking which illuminated the modern political and social landscape of America. With just one comment made by a classmate, it was as if someone just turned on the light in a dark room and, suddenly, everything was clear. I knew right where I and everybody else was in that room with regard to political ideals.

A Biology Lesson

I own much of this illumination to the identities of the people involved. I am a middle-aged man who, at the time, was taking a pre-requisite course to get into nursing school ( I graduated a few months ago). The conversation which I was witnessing took place between my instructor, perhaps 5-10 years younger than me, and a young girl taking the class. She was probably 20 years old.

The professor was explaining the nucleotides that compose the very basic elements of our genetic structure. He remarked that errors in the layouts of these nucleotides were responsible for many diseases. In fact, he said, it was known that UVA radiation could cause thymine nucleotides to bind into units called thymine dimers. These mutations were the primary cause of skin cancer.

Then he said that it always pained him to hear about people using tanning beds. They were just increasing the chances that their thymine would mutate and cause cancer.

The young girl in the class spoke up. "That's awful. If I were president, I would outlaw those places."

The professor, God bless him, replied that there was something called the US Constitution and we were all still free to make decisions for ourselves, even if those decisions were not good for us.

The girl later went on to comment that she just didn't feel safe in a country where it was permitted to endanger yourself. As I recall, the professor turned us back to the lesson and the moment was left behind, only to live in my memory.

Safety versus Freedom

It occurred to me, as I tried to comprehend why I found the girl's comments so repulsive, that she represented one side of a dichotomy in American mindsets. It also revealed to me an explanation for the differences between the general nature of American and European political divides.

This country was founded and colonized by a wide variety of people. The Puritans were not the only ones to come over from the Old World. Yet those early Americans shared one quality or drive in life. They wanted to be free to live as they pleased. Their great common desire was to be left alone to pursue their destinies. They wanted to be free to create their own worlds and manage their own protection from the elements and from their fellow human beings.

Even later immigrants, on whom descendants of the earliest Americans looked down, shared a similar drive. They were escaping poverty or limitations of some sort in Europe in order to come here and find their own way.

In the early 20th century, the much-reviled Southern European immigrants were not coming to America to be on the dole. There was no welfare system. They fully expected to be left to their own devices when they hit the shore. As long as they had a chance to fight for their own prosperity in a land that seemed to have endless real estate and resources, they were content with the opportunity.

There is another social desire active in the world. This is the desire to be safe, to be protected. The semi-mythical contract that occurred between post-Roman Empire Europeans and the feudal knights demonstrates the centrality of this desire in the human psyche.

Allegedly, the feudal transformation of Europe occurred when villages of common people agreed to provide economic support for soldiers, typically led by the horsemen we would call knights now. in exchange for protection from the increasingly chaotic environment left as Rome's influence ebbed in Europe. I doubt any such exchange occurred as cleanly as that but I am also sure that there is a kernel of truth in it all. With banditry on the rise and the roads becoming home to crime rather than commerce, I am sure many people gave up their freedom to be safe.

Sound familiar?

As time passed, the boundlessness of US resources became somewhat less boundless. While this nation still retains an immense amount of open land, times changed during the 20th century. Urbanization increased, especially after the world wars. We became a people primarily living in cities, cities in which we were protected by police forces rather than a village posse or our own arms. Also, the generations that had come here seeking freedom passed away and were replaced by descendants who did not necessarily share their desire for freedom.

Instead, they wanted what those medieval Europeans wanted: protection from crime. These new Americans were increasingly less armed than their forefathers. They wanted to enjoy urban prosperity, learn new trades and even go to school to study the liberal arts rather than forge a new life in the wilderness or build a business from scratch. In order to do these things, they wanted government to take on the job of keeping them safe while they pursued these new goals.

They were willing to give up certain things, such as the right to bear arms, in order to create a protected environment in which they could pursue these goals. In short, they valued safety more than freedom.

That doesn't sound so awful. However, I think that this new desire for safety rather than freedom has again morphed with the latest generation into something that does, in fact, sicken me,

That girl in my biology class did not simply want to make a calculated decision to sacrifice a specific freedom in exchange for another social good. She wanted to live in an environment in which she no longer had the ability to make bad choices at all. Rather, she wanted someone else making those decisions for her. In essence, she wanted to be a perpetual child and she wanted her political leaders to act as pseudo-parents. She wanted Barack Obama to be her father and simply refuse to permit unsafe things in her home environment.

Women's Suffrage and the Infantilization of America

Something else occurred in America during this last century which I believe had a huge impact on its political and social transformation. Women became full-fledged citizens with the right to vote.

Now, the move to give women the vote was ostensibly done by forces which might be characterized as conservative today. There had long been a liberal movement to give women the vote in the Anglo Saxon world. However, the granting of voting rights was really done in Western states in order to hurry the process ending in statehood. These territories suddenly had many more voters and possessed more "statelike" populations in terms of size.

I posit that this had a big effect on the increasing concern with safety in this country. Prior to this, I am sure that most American men wanted, more than anything else, the space and opportunity to live out their lives.

Women, though, come into the world with completely different mindsets. Contrary to pseudo-lesbian feminist beliefs, women are born with family on their minds. I am not one of those who believes that women are naturally more nurturing or more gentle than men. Anyone who has been married knows that this is simply not true,

However, by force of millions of years of biology, women do tend to think in terms of family and children. They are more naturally comfortable with children. To their credit, we probably owe much of our rise from the animal kingdom to women's incessant chattering with children, which helped develop those children's minds with regard to language.

I think that this sudden preponderance of women in the voting bloc (they are over 50% of the population) explains much of the recent past politically.

How much of our political conversation, especially since the onset of the Cold War, has been dedicated to the cause of protection? We wanted to be protected from the Nazis. the Soviets, the terrorists and now,increasingly, people who say "mean" things. Women have been all too happy to throw out freedom of speech in order to prevent feelings from being hurt. This reminds me of a mother forbidding her children to broach certain topics just because she doesn't want to deal with another familial eruption.

Of course, it is not just women who engage in this kind of thinking. Men do it, too. That is, they think this way until they become men. Boy children want to be protected from harm as much as girl children until they begin to develop. Then they begin to fight, explore, seek their own way in the world,

I think an additional phenomenon explaining this conflict in American politics is not just the addition of women to the voting bloc but also the pacification, feminization and infantilization of many men. Or, rather, it is that many men never really develop into men but remain in a stage of early adolescence which leaves them all too ready to seek safety rather than freedom in life.

Other Groups in America and in Europe

This thinking has helped me to understand why conservatives in Europe often have distinctly different views on social and economic issues when compared to American conservatives. Many conservatives in Europe consider a certain amount of socialism to be natural and even desirable.

This makes sense when you remember that they are the descendants of those peasants who chose to stay in the Old World and embraced the idea of being protected by government. The democratic governments have simply replaced the knights and nobility of centuries past.

It also explains to me why other groups in American politics never seem to embrace "American ideals". Africans did not immigrate to this country seeking freedom to live as they please. They were abducted, sold and transported here against their will. It makes sense that they do not have any genetic impulse to seek freedom over safety since their ancestors had no desire to cross the ocean to be here in the first place.

How this applies to Latino immigrants might be a good topic for another essay. This article is already too long.

However, in closing, I think that this concept helps to explain a lot that is going on in American politics now and even applies to the ascendancy of Donald Trump. Again, this is a topic for another article.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Donald Trump: Bullying Opponents Out of the Race

Donald Trump is looking to bully another GOP opponent out of the race. It is becoming obvious that this was and is a major technique for Trump in business. Using pure, masculine aggressiveness to improve your position and drive away weaker contenders. It probably works well for him in the business arena but it remains to be seen if it will work in the long term in politics.
You're Fired!

Trump is forecasting that Rand Paul will soon drop out of the race and takes credit for pushing him into this decision.Rand Paul generally garners about 2% of the vote in polls conducted among likely GOP voters. All this after years of hard work and a much bugger percentage gained by his father in GOP races in 2012. In fact, Ron Paul went all the way to the General Convention and still got 190 votes when Romney essentially had the thing locked up.

Trump is probably right. Rand Paul, as well as several others, look poised to bow out of the race. Though there is still a long way to go and anything can happen, with so many contenders it just makes sense for someone with roughly 1% of the vote to step out. What is remarkable about this moment in American politics is how it appears that a leading candidate is actively trying to push people out of the race.

I an not sure that this is a good idea for Donald Trump in the long-term. It may be satisfying and it may appeal to his desire for conflict, but it may also strengthen his more popular opponents. One wonders how many Paul voters are likely to come into Trump's camp rather than throw in their lot with Rubio, Cruz or Fiorina. Paul was known for his libertarian views and it is anyone's guess where his support may go.

The Chink in Trump's Armor

At the same time, Donald Trump seems to have displayed, for the first time, a weakness. He already admits that he has a fallback plan for failure. If his numbers get down to Scott Walker levels, he claims, he will just go back to running his business.

Is this an accidental slip that reveals some psychic weariness of the whole race? Is Trump already thinking about quitting and going back to his natural realm in business? Surely, the few times that his handlers have convinced him to moderate his remarks or apologize must rankle him. Perhaps Trump will make his own exit before anyone expects it.

That certainly won't happen now. Donald Trump still has a loyal core of followers giving him roughly 25% of the support available for GOP candidates. I am not sure that he will make it to the primaries due to his own quirky nature but I am sure that he will continue to entertain us for a few more weeks at least,

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Did You Know That Jim Webb Was Running for President in Election 2016?

When I started this reincarnation of a blog back in August, I did not even know that Jim Webb was running for the Democratic nomination in Election 2016. I think that I remember hearing about it months ago, probably right after he officially declared in July. But I had not retained that memory and was only reminded of the fact last week.

How did he slip under the radar? Well, Jim Webb, along with a handful of other democrats, is maintaining an average polling success somewhere between 0% and 1%. In virtually every poll he comes in behind Joe Biden, who hasn't even decided to run for the Presidency yet.

Perhaps a better question is, why is Jim Webb virtually an unknown at this point?

One could say that being behind in the polls is meaningless at this point anyway. Hell, the first primary is still four months away. Not long ago, candidates were not even on the road at this time. They were at their jobs, still thinking about running for office. These days, you have to declare yourself for one election practically before the prior election is over.

A lot can happen in four months. As I stated with regard to the opponents of Donald Trump several weeks ago, the billionaire can get a lot of free press right now but over the course of this dead period before the primaries, other candidates can generate support simply by hanging on and acting as alternatives whenever a leading candidate makes a gaffe.

Jim Webb stands to gain support whenever Sanders or Clinton begins to hemorrhage support for one reason or another. If Biden comes into the race, I predict that this will do more than turn support the Vice President's way. It will also fragment support for Clinton and send at least some dribbles of support down toward Webb, O'Malley, et al.

None of this answers the question as to why Jim Webb is so far behind. Other candidates might explain that the other campaigns are simply better funded. That is certainly true in the case of Jim Webb. However, I think that Webb is a unique creature these days, something of a last Mohican. He is a conservative democrat.

Jim Webb served as the last Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. He earned the spot not only for his legal and political background but also due to serving in the Marine Corps in Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 70s. He was wounded multiple times and earned a number of decorations for bravery.

And yet, he is a democrat! Not that republican candidates have any claim on military service. Most of those bastards are cowards equal to any democratic candidate. I think, were Jim Webb a republican, he would be able to parlay this background into a superior poll ranking. Democratic voters, however, are much more interested in identity politics and victim worship.

They are actually embarrassed by people like Jim Webb, who support the 1st and 2nd amendments and believe in supporting the armed forces of the country. Democrats will take a community organizer over a decorated hero any day. Unfortunately, Republicans will adhere to a loud-mouth blowhards when all other options fail to muster any sign of manhood.

Jim Webb is still hanging on and he hopes to participate in Election 2016 as the democratic candidate for President of the United States. I fear, though, that any day could bring news of his capitulation. Good luck, Jim.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Election 2016: What Is Wrong with This Country?

The answer to this question depends on who you ask. More than one social commentator has spoken about the growing divide between Americans with regard to political views. Even someone like me, just in his 40s, can remember a time when liberals and conservatives found common ground on numerous issues. More importantly, we all went to social gatherings and managed to get along in public. As Election 2016 nears, the issues that divide us became ever more clear.

Now, the tone has changed significantly. I was saddened to see a Facebook friend proudly proclaim that she would immediately block anyone who ever posted anything that she felt was sexist. There would be no discussion and no appeal. The person would simply be gone. Leaving aside all the comments I could make about the hubris of actually thinking that banning people from your friend list was some sort of significant threat, I thought how awful this person must be inside to be so eager to cut off relationships based on differing perceptions.

But that is increasingly the way that it is in this country. I find that it is impossible to have a distinct opinion about matters of race, sex, gender etc. without suffering immediate insult.

If I state that I do not think that Bruce Jenner is a woman, and point out simple scientific facts about trillions of cells in his body possessing the Y-chromosome, I should not expect a calm rejoinder about different views of what composes one's gender. Instead, I should be prepared to be outed in violent verbal fashion as a sexist, transphobe or whatever the fuck they call it. I can also expect to lose a friendship, apparently.

If I suggest that we are a country of immigrants and share a great deal in common with Latin Americans when compared to other immigrant waves, I can expect an energetic tirade about Mexican cartels and Latin American welfare queens and remittance schemes.

The distinct answers to this question, then, are really the answer themselves. The problem is this great divide in the perception of present reality. Each side sees completely different things wrong with the country.

What Liberals Think Is Wrong with This Country

When I was young, I definitely thought of myself as a liberal. As a liberal, I had a distinct set of concerns. They were mostly focused on working families and their economic viability. I was afraid that big business would not take care of these people without government interference to ensure their protection and their proper compensation for their work.

One motivation for leaving the Democratic party, to which I briefly belonged in the early 1990s, was the changing focus of the democrats. I do not know any liberals now who really seem to care about poor white men living in trailers and trying to support families. Instead, those men are seen increasingly as the problem by liberals. These uneducated men are likely racist and sexist.

Instead, liberal concerns seem to have turned toward identity politics. It does not seem to matter if you are earning a wage to support a family. Indeed, I believe that many liberals see the family as a unit of oppression. It appears to me that liberals envision a future of individuals who are freed from any kind of bonds on their identities: neither race nor gender nor religion will define a person.

Indeed, religion is an immensely important sub-topic in this discussion. When I was that young man so long ago, both liberals and conservatives went to church on Sunday. If anything, this issue divides liberals and conservatives more distinctly than any other. Liberals, by and large, do not go to church or they go to churches which speak more often about social issues than they do about theological issues.

While some liberals will hold back when discussing religion when they are around people whom they know to be adherents of one faith or another, Internet forums make it quite obvious that they truly despise religion and consider believers to be idiots in whom their can be no sort of trust with regard to the arch-important matters of sexism, racism etc.

What Conservatives Think Is Wrong with This Country

If you are having this conversation with a group of people and suddenly switch from a liberal to a conservative reply, you might think that you are asking questions about two different countries.

To conservatives heading into Election 2016, it appears that liberals are living in some sort of illusory world. This perception is best described by the recent Bruce Jenner event in which he altered his body surgically and declared himself to be a woman. The press immediately began using the feminine pronoun to describe Jenner. It makes conservatives think that liberals use some kind of magical thinking: whatever you think to be true is true, apparently. Conservatives begin to ask, can you make 2+2=5 in that world?

Conservatives see a black man in the presidency and assume that racism is essentially over and everyone can move on. Obviously, race did not keep a black man from reaching the highest office, so how can racism still be impacting black lives?

Conservatives fear the increasing atomization of the family. They see it as responsible for crime and even disease in the long run. Generally, they see the nuclear family as ideal.

You would have to dig deep to find a conservative who did not believe in the essential equality of the races, at least with regard to rights. However, conservatives tend to guard their opinions about the natural abilities and inclinations of each race. Decades ago, it was common for people to speak about the goals and inclinations of each race in distinct ways. Now that this is forbidden, conservatives may pay lip service to the idea of absolute equality but carefully reveal dissidence in guarded conversations.

Conservatives are also still concerned about economic issues form the cold war. They are fearful of a perceived rising socialist threat in the advance of the welfare state.

Immigration has become the biggest conservative concern, possibly because it naturally includes so many of the issues which divide liberals and conservatives. Here you find race and economics together.

Conservatives, in general, treasure the European history which they inherited and the influence of European immigrants on the country in the past. The waves of Latin American immigration which have battered the shores of this country in recent decades concern them greatly for two reasons: they see an eroding of the cultural foundations of the country and they are afraid of the economic impact of so many people living off other people's taxes.

Exceptions to the Rule

There are liberals who are in favor of greater immigration restrictions and conservatives who do not believe in God.

Certainly, the American political landscape is and always has been somewhat kaleidoscopic. My point is that it is much less so now than it was in the previous decades. Reading history, though, I can see that this concentration or crystallization of political viewpoints has happened before. Unfortunately, those periods always did great damage to the country in one way or another.

What Do I Think Is Wrong with This Country?

Most liberals that I know would definitely call me a sexist and a racist, though I am married to a Latin American woman and have experience raising a child in the home while my wife was the breadwinner. That is one of the reasons that I am not a liberal. In my opinion, they do in fact live in an imaginary world in which they can change reality with magical thinking.

Most conservatives would call me a liberal. I speak Spanish and have spent years working as a volunteer to help undocumented workers survive in this country. I like the free market but I have no problem with putting a wrecking ball to the whole health care industry and making government health insurance available to all citizens. I would definitely soak the rich by increasing their taxes.

So what do I think is wrong? The biggest problem is the division of the country into two camps. In the end, it may go back to the whole religion issue. Once liberals stopped going to church, we lost a common ground for meeting. Now liberal ideas were for the most part, cooked up outside the churches and those who remained inside the church walls began to strengthen the defenses.

We are already at war, in a sense. We just haven't started killing anybody. I certainly do not know the best way to resolve this growing divide. I am afraid that the only answer will come from the intensification of the conflict. If you look back at the history of the Civil War, you can see how the country simply came to the point where the only answer was bloodshed. People lost the ability to discuss the issues anymore.

I have good reason for thinking that it will not come to actual physical conflict in the future. I think that our individual lives are so free from the usual concerns of the past that we will not generate the motivation to go to war over these issues. For instance, everyone has more than enough to eat and a secure place to live. It is difficult to work up the ferocity required for war when you are physically comfortable.

But events can always take strange turns. You could have made the case, in the prosperous American colonies of 1770, that revolution against England was an absurd idea. Yet it happened. I hope, for the sake of my children, that we find a way to avoid conflict both before and after Election 2016 while actually working on real resolutions to our differences.

Friday, September 25, 2015

Jeb Bush Breaks Into Double Digits

The latest polls show that Jeb Bush is hanging in there. While not skyrocketing to the top of the polls, he has acquired a respectable 10% of the vote as less well-financed competition has stepped out of the race. As I said in a previous post, candidates like Jeb can afford to wait for Donald Trump to either sabotage himself or simply lose the excitement initially garnered by a new face.
In my opinion, looks too much like his mother.
I do not think that Bush's message resonates with any more voters than before. He is simply benefiting from the thinning of the ranks that has occurred and from the thinning that is about to occur. By this, I mean that many voters are starting to see how continuing to hold their vote for Jindal, Graham or Huckabee is just pointless and they are gravitating to whomever they think has a similar message and a better chance. Jeb is getting some sloppy seconds, in other words.

Nevertheless, do not think for a minute that I count him out. He was the crown prince not long ago and has simply been overshadowed for a moment by an upstart. His background and his finances can still see him through to the end, no matter how much Trump's more fervent followers would like to see him fail. I would not be surprised to see him win this thing next summer.

In fact, as much as I enjoy the chaos started by Donald Trump, I would be more surprised if that eccentric billionaire won than I would be by Bush;s eventual victory. In the end, I don't see the establishment allowing the status quo to be overturned.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Who Is Marco Rubio?

After the second GOP debate, three top candidates were reconfirmed in their positions: Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson. An additional member of the pack stepped into the foreground: Marco Rubio.

Some Biographical Data

Marco Rubio is one of the younger republicans running for national office this year. As of this writing, he is just 44 years old. If elected, he would be one of the youngest men to ever hold the highest office in the land.

Youth is not the only thing that distinguishes Rubio from past and present GOP candidates. He is a Cuban-American from Florida, one of three serving in the US Senate. His youth and ethnicity single him out at a time when liberals are more likely than ever to depict the Republican Party as a party of old, white men.

Furthermore, Rubio is a Roman Catholic. Only one Roman Catholic, the democrat John Kennedy, has ever served as US President, though the US population is more than 20% Catholic.

Political Background

Marco Rubio won his first election in 1999, when he narrowly defeated an opponent for the Florida State House of Representatives. In just three years, he became the Majority leader in that representative body. By 2009 he was ready for bigger things and ran for the US Senate seat that had been opened by resignation. He defeated the governor of that state, Charlie Crist, in that election.

As junior Senator from Florida, Rubio has represented ideas that have become fairly typical for Republicans today. He won his seat with strong Tea Party support. He has since distinguished himself somewhat from that political group with his stance on immigration reform (rather than enforcement) and his call for strengthening the military.

He takes a strong anti-abortion stance and received a B+ from the NRA on the issue of gun control. He is less republican on climate change, essentially taking an agnostic stance.

It remains to be seen whether Rubio will have the organization behind him to manage this sudden limelight. However, if his past is any indicator, he has been aiming for greater things since the very beginning.

Monday, September 21, 2015

GOP Front Runners

Even though we are far away from the Iowa caucus on February 1, things have really heated up in the Republican presidential race. Out of the crowd of some 15 or 16 remaining candidates, there are four distinct front runners coming out of the second debate.



Trump came away from the debate with fewer adherents apparently.
The latest polls have him at 24% support. Earlier surveys had put him above 30%. Most people seemed to think he either just held his own or did poorly at the forum of ten leading republicans that convened last week. So many posts are devoted to the Donald that I won't waste more space on him here.


Carson appears to be essentially tied with Carly Fiorina for second. Each of them comes in with 15% of the total GOP support. For Carson, this is a letdown because he was a strong second in the week leading up to the second GOP debate. I have already dedicated a lot of space to Carson so I will leave it at that.    



The former HP CEO made major gains after this last debate. There was a lot of buzz about her but not much movement in the polls prior to that. The expectations were high after her better-than-expected showing at the non-debate held outside the first GOP debate. She accomplished her mission and rose to vie with arson for second-place in republican hearts,


  • Marco Rubio
    Someone was destined to rise up out of the remaining pack and make a respectable showing with these three leaders. Marco Rubio finally lifted his head above the rest and stood tall with Trump, Fiorina, and Carson. The junior US Senator from Florida since 2011, he is just 44 years old and notably hispanic. 

I'll give Rubio his own column shortly. In the meantime, I am noticing that the party which liberals characterize as old, white and male is supporting black, hispanic and female candidates, one of whom is just 44 years old.

Saturday, September 19, 2015

The Walking Dead: Why the Republican Nominees Don't Give Up

When I see that some of the GOP nominees are still polling somewhere between 0 and 1% of the republican vote, I have a hard time figuring out why they are still in the race when virtually no one has expressed interest in their candidacy so far. Are they just stubborn or are they convinced that they can turn things around if they just hang on long enough?

It actually makes my brain hurt to think that George Pataki is still in this thing. He and some of his fellow nominees remind me of scenes from the Walking Dead where armies of zombies march silently on.

Is that Scott Walker in front?
After thinking about it for a while, though, the answer should become obvious to everyone. Give it enough thinking and the answer actually becomes disturbing.

I once jokingly suggested that the nominees were simply running to see who would be Donald Trump's VP. I was only being semi-facetious and I am not that convinced that Trump will be the last one standing. However, there is probably more truth in that statement than I originally thought.

Many of the people up on the stage during the debates are probably thinking that they can secure cabinet positions by hanging in there and demonstrating that a portion of the conservative electorate believes in them. I would guess that Lindsey Graham has his eyes on the Defense Department from all his war-hawking. Christie might have the State Department or even the vice-presidency in mind. One wonders what Mike Huckabee would actually want.

These positions are not just opportunities to stay in the limelight and position themselves for a future run at the presidency again. Federal jobs in the Administrative and in the Legislative branches come with hefty salaries and excellent retirement packages. Once you have been in a federal elected post or in the president's cabinet, you qualify for lasting benefits which vary depending on how much you earned and how long you held your post.

I think that these people are just eyeing potential gigs with the next POTUS. They are planning on putting in hours and credits just like regular people that try to get in enough work time to make meager increases in their social security or their own retirement packages. But at this level, they are guaranteeing themselves some really sweet benefits when compared to what most of us can ever expect.

After I got this idea, I still wondered at the number of would-be candidates. After all, this benefit of federal work has existed for some time. Why the rush now to get into the government? Is it because they are all in a position to understand that guarantees are running out? That the US government would be the last domino to fall during hard economic times? Do they agree with the doomsayers running around and predicting economic collapse?

Maybe of a lot these zombie nominees are really just trying to get last-minute tickets on Noah's Ark because they know that it is already raining. Depressing, I know.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Who Is Carly Fiorina?

It is hard to stand out in such a large crowd of candidates like the one that the GOP has fielded this year. Carly Fiorina is the only woman running for the republican nomination this year, so she immediately gains a little extra attention just for that. However, she has parlayed her mere position among the nominees into something much more formidable in the last few weeks.

Carly Fiorina was little more than a face in that crowd when the first GOP debate aired. In fact, she was not even allowed into the main circle of 10 front-running nominees but was rather set aside with a half dozen others in a non-debate forum. Each nominee there only had the opportunity to speak his or her piece and be done with it.

She made the most of the moment by coming off as a sober, intelligent candidate. Then she turned that into something more by playing up the idea that she had forgotten her notes and had spoken off the cuff. She earned a more prominent spot in the second GOP debate held earlier this week.

Fiorina's Background

At present, Fiorina is the chairman of a philanthropic organization known as Good 360. She is perhaps most well-known for her time as the CEO of Hewlett Packard (HP). Heading that business from 1999 to 2005, Forbes recognized her as the first woman to manage one of the top-20 companies in the world. She ran for the US Senate in 2010 in California but lost the general election to Barbara Boxer.

Among her more notable political positions are her pro-life stance, her acceptance of climate change theory and her opposition to Obamacare and the Iran nuclear agreement.

What Her Supporters Like

Fiorina's backers proudly point to her business experience as a major qualifier for the presidential role.

Her ideas are moderately conservative. For example, she is only against abortions after 20 weeks though she does state that she would defund Planned Parenthood and seek some route to overturn Roe v Wade. She proclaims support for Proposition 8 in California, which briefly banned same-sex marriage in California but worked to ensure domestic partners benefits for employees while at HP.

What Her Detractors Don't

Conservatives on the hard-right do not like her moderation. However, others have more technical and pointed concerns. For instance, although she has worked extensively in politics, she has never held public office. Furthermore, her business career does not withstand much scrutiny because she was fired from her position as CEO due to falling stock prices and a decline in earnings.

Nevertheless, in polls taken after the second debate, Fiorina appears tied with Doonald Trump. Each of them are now wielding about a quarter of the GOP electorate as the number of weaker candidates begins to decrease.

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Is There Anyone Else Running for President?

While I have ridiculed some of the unlikelier efforts to run for president (I'm talking to you, Rick Santorum and Lindsey Graham), I should probably devote at least a little space to the horde of third-party candidates that have gathered once again tilt at windmills. Here are some of the more notable Quixotes under their party banners (source):


American Freedom Party

Robert Whitaker of South Carolina leads the ticket for this party. I am not sure what more to say about this party except that the article posted here on their website proves that they are burdened with some serious mental disorders.

Constitution Party

There are several candidates from this party apparently running for the nomination. They have their seven principles on their website. They look to be, in the contemporary environment, pretty reactionary. It is interesting to note that they would have been very middle of the road or even somewhat liberal viewpoints a century or less ago.

Green Party

The watermelon party: green on the outside and red on the inside. They also have fielded several candidates for the nomination Darryl Cherny of Northern California has his exploratory committee's web presence on Facebook..

Libertarian Party

As always, the Libertarian party has gathered their merry band of misfits for another nomination party. Most notable among them is Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico. His webpage has some jazzy music and focuses on the examination and redefinition of liberty and freedom.

Party of Socialism and Liberation

This party has the perfect PC ticket. They have already selected their candidates: a hispanic woman for the presidency and a black man for the vice presidency. Gloria LaRiva comes out of California and Eugene Puryear is from DC. There platform appears to be straightforward socialism. They mix a little environmentalism in with their ideas, saying that "for the Earth to live, Capitalism must end!".

I always thought that socialism was meant to save the working class. Looks like those workers can go fuck themselves, 'cause were savin' the planet!

Peace and Freedom Party

Believe it or not, Roseanne Barr is running for president! Along with a few others, she is seeking the nomination for the presidential ticket of the Peace and Freedom Party. What I don't understand is how Gloria LaRiva is also running for this party's ticket. Maybe this is like taking the side bet in blackjack.

Prohibition Party

It may be hard to imagine but there is a Prohibition Party in this country. And when I say Prohibition, I mean the ban-alcohol party from the early 20th century. You might want to laugh at the idea, but the man running for president under this banner has held elected office as the leading member of that party. Most third-party candidates cannot say the same.

Reform Party USA

The Reform Party was started back in the 1990s under Ross Perot. It still exists to day and is still putting forth candidates for the presidency. This year, the sole candidate on the ticket appears to be Ken Cross.

Veterans' Party of America

There is also a party dedicated to viewing politics through the eyes of veterans. More than that, though, they also have a platform with pretty clear statements and a focus on constitutionality and border defense.

Saturday, September 12, 2015

And Then There Nine. Or 16. Wait. How Many GOP Candidates Are There?

So Rick Perry dropped out of the race. It looks like bullying tactics are working pretty well for Donald Trump.

Perry was one of the earliest victims of Trump's aggression. Trump hammered down on Perry's alleged intelligence deficit, saying that the ex-governor of Texas should have to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate. Just this humiliating charge was enough to noticeably diminish Perry's standing in the polls.

In Rick Perry's defense, I don't see what makes him so apparently less intelligent than any other political candidate. According to this Gene Expression article from a 2011 edition of Discover magazine, Perry got Cs and Ds in his college courses back in the late 60s and early 70s.

Youths of today, granted Cs practically just for showing up at school, do not understand that a C grade was pretty respectable back before the days when everyone was expected to go to college. I suspect that a review of college grades for many great statesmen would reveal lackluster academic performances. Great men do not tend to fare well in the institutions of docility that pass for schools these days.

The saddest part of the whole debacle is that Perry gave up his job as governor of Texas early this year to run for President. Now, many candidates give up positions in order to run for another office. However, it must hurt to have the whole dream turned to shit so quickly.

If he had at least made it to the primaries, he might have felt justified in the decision to quit. Now he must be missing the security and privilege of his former position.

Nevertheless, Perry is out and the dwindling has begun. Also, the Donald has once again been provided with another headline and indirectly free publicity.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Is Donald Trump Sinking His Own Ship?

Recently, Donald Trump has tried his hardest to sabotage himself in the GOP race for the presidency. He has done this before with comments about Megyn Kelly and others but with little or no impact on his poll numbers. It remains to be seen how his latest efforts will hurt his chances or not.

Trump vs Carson

A few days ago, Ben Carson was asked to distinguish himself from Donald Trump. He responded with a remark that referenced matters of faith. He seemed to suggest that Trump's religiosity was insincere, since citing a favorite passage from the Bible would be too personal. This was not a very targeted attack and it takes a little effort to even see it as a disparaging remark at all.

That did not stop Trump from going on the attack as soon as he learned about it. He immediately referenced Carson's own faith history and shed doubt on the idea that he has been a man of faith all his life.

“All of a sudden he's becoming this man of faith," Trump snorted. The billionaire candidate also called Carson, who is renowned for neurosurgery, an "okay doctor." That is what we called damning with faint praise. Trump definitely shows here how his aggressiveness has served him in the world of business.

Carson, to his credit, heard about the dust up and apologized if it had seemed his intent to cause insult. I have not heard back on whether Trump responded in any way.

Trump vs Fiorina

"Look at that face!" Trump huffed as he spoke with a Rolling Stone interviewer and pointed to Carly Fiorina, who had just appeared on a nearby TV screen. "Would anyone vote for that?"

The cry over this one involves sexism but I think, if I may interject my own sexist viewpoint here, that this is really all about the delicacy women have with regard to their features. Had he said this about Jeb Bush, everyone would have laughed. But, as Trump immediately pointed out after letting another gaffe slip through his lips, you're not supposed to say bad things about women. You especially should not call them ugly.

The funny thing here is that all the people who are upset have probably made many a joke or laughed at many a joke about Trump's hair. But a chick's face is off limits, right?

How it Hurts

Everyone, even most republicans, think that it is funny to make a Jeb Bush joke or laugh at Lindsey Graham's attempt at the presidency. However, Carson and Fiorina belong to special groups which political correctness does not allow to be insulted in today's world: minorities and women.

I was initially surprised when I heard that Trump had gone after Carson. Carson's race generally leaves him immune to many of the most vile weapons available in a politician's arsenal. I was also curious to hear exactly how Trump had bungled this one.

But the details are quite boring. He never really insulted Carson. He made a quite probable reference to Carson's faith being a rather recent invention. Nor did he say that Carson was a lousy doctor. Plenty of people would love to be "okay doctors" in this world. It is only that he undermined the public idea that Carson was brilliant that caused Trump trouble here.

Trump also attacked a woman but this is not a first for him and it has not hurt his numbers before. Plenty of women support Trump and have publicly stated that they forgive him these faults because of other more important traits.

Does It Matter?

I think that this only looks like a major confrontation from the headlines. It is pretty obvious, after you read the first few articles about it all, that the media is trying to dig up a story here.

In the end, this is really good for Trump. I mentioned in a  previous article that the Donald's biggest enemy right now is this slow period between now and the first primary. The media continues to make headlines for him at no cost to his treasure chest.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Clear and Present Danger for Donald Trump

If you are a fan of Donald Trump, then it might be easy right now to get carried away with enthusiasm and assume that he cannot be stopped. After all, Jeb Bush is basically imploding with omega male misery and the myriad other contenders are, for the most part, swirling and spinning in the wake of Trump's speedboat.

The only real threat appears to be Ben Carson. But ask yourself, are the other candidates trying to imitate Carson to make up the difference or are they imitating Trump? GOP candidates are trying to fire up the rhetoric and appear as outspoken as the Donald now but this is a pathetic effort doomed to failure. Even the dimmest bulb in the room sees through this effort and, worse, they are going to turn off many of their more traditional supporters.

However, if you have been through a few political cycles, you can see a serious but ambiguous threat to Trump's continued popularity.

Time Destroys All Things
Trump towers someday. But maybe not in 2016!
Just think, the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary are still four months away. Once those events occur, leading candidates have headlines to help carry their efforts to the next round of primaries. You can either count on winning a primary or doing better than expected to generate some free publicity and keep people interested.

But we are not in primary season. If you want to be noticed and gather support, you need to create your own stories. Now, so far Trump has had little difficulty doing this. The press has been giving him free publicity for several weeks but he was still considered a sideshow just a couple months ago. Now he has to slog through four months of quiet time.

The other candidates, even those with just a few percentage points of support, can still come back if they manage to hold on. Just like stocks usually bounce back from lows and reward investors who hold on to them, candidates can recover when emotional support for a frontrunner fades away as time passes and nothing new happens. That support has to go somewhere and it can trickle down to these stragglers and make some headlines for them.

I am not saying that Trump cannot do it, only that he has a different game ahead of him now. He has garnered a lot of press and support for being outspoken. Over four months, that will get old. He will probably have to begin producing policies and plans and compete with these others in their own games.

Clinging to a Bush

Jeb Bush has a lot of money. He can hold on. He might begin to look very good to people who tire of Trump's bluster and seek comfort in traditional candidates.  Other GOP candidates may share the same hope. Ben Carson can hope to appear as the safe and sensible alternative to "the crazies," as John McCain referred to the earliest supporters of Trump over a month ago.