In the past, the blog has covered national politics more often than I usually do now!
Well, today, I'm back at it!
=========================
Republicans
At this point, it will be Donald Trump that will be the Republican nominee for President.
AS mentioned in the earlier blog post, Donald Trump has proven that many of the so-called "conservatives" don't really care much about the so-called "conservative" ideology when it comes to abortion, pornography, free-market economics, foreign policy or even respecting the veterans. Their main priority is going around saying "hey, look at me everyone, I'm being politically incorrect by hating on Mexicans & Muslims"
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2016/01/trump-and-real-conservatism.html
All the effort by the Bushes to encourage the Republicans to do outreach with Latinos and other minorities has gone down the drain!
Part of it is due to the reluctance of pro-immigration Republicans like Jeb Bush to aggressively fight back against Donald Trump's rhetoric.
Another is that there were 17 candidates competing for attention, whereas Hillary Clinton mostly just had to deal with Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side.
The 17 candidates included governors (ie Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich) and senators (Mark Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul), all of whom with great political experience that might've let them shine
if there wasn't so much competition for the limelight!
There was also entrepreneur Carly Fiorina and award-winning doctor Ben Carson in the mix!
But Donald Trump came in doing what he knew best -- getting attention by being his usual abrasive self!
He didn't apologize for anything and didnt back down when proven wrong!
This scared the other candidates who were only prepared to campaign against the usual boring politicians!
Ted Cruz was the best prepared of Trump's opponents! Though he isn't the most lovable candidate, he wasn't as abrasive as Trump, but he wasn't a wussy pushover like Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, etc.
Chris Christie might've shined if Donald Trump wasn't around! Christie is like the classroom bully who realizes the new bully is now in the room! It was even more pathetic when Christie dropped out of the race and was so submissive to Trump afterwards!
Ben Carson might've been the inspirational story of an inner-city Detroit kid who became a top-rated neurosurgeon who also made speeches, but was unprepared for the national ridicule of his controversial statements.
Marco Rubio had potential as the young guy in tune with modern pop culture, the Pitbull (as in Mr Worldwide) of politics, but he said too many cliches, and he only made humorous comments against Donald Trump when it was
too little too late!
Donald Trump didn't even win the majority of the voters in the early primaries/caucuses, nobody did! But with so much competition early on, getting about 35% of the vote was enough to give Trump victory (and in some cases, all the delegates).
Just imagine if it was only Donald Trump vs Ted Cruz in the early primaries/caucuses
Just imagine if there was no Jeb, no Marco, no Jindal, no Carson, no Fiorina, no Christie, no Kasich
Just imagine if it was just Trump vs Cruz, just like it was just Clinton vs Sanders on the Democrat side
That might've meant Ted Cruz would've won more of the early voting states, and
Donald Trump might've been in the same position that Bernie Sanders is now:
lots of crowds, lots of noise, but also 2nd place!
I think the same might've been the case if it was just John Kasich vs Donald Trump, or if it was just (fill in blank) vs Donald Trump!
---------------------
The political trends showed that Trump dominated the South and the Northeast, whereas Cruz dominated the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. Or if you go by stereotypes, Trump won the states with a "rowdy" reputation, and Cruz won the states with a more "quiet" reputation.
Micheal Barone (one of the premier experts on political voting patterns) mentioned about how social connectedness affected which states were won by Trump or Cruz
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2016/03/29/does-social-connectedness-explain-trumps-appeal-n2139922
Looking over the election returns, I sense that Trump's support comes
disproportionately from those with low social connectedness. My first
clues came from the Dutch. Heavily Dutch-American counties in northwest
and central Iowa and western Michigan, around Grand Rapids, were
Huckabee and Santorum territory in past years.
This year, unlike
surrounding territory, they voted for Ted Cruz, with Trump a poor third.
Dutch-Americans have dense networks of churches and civic groups --
unusually high social connectedness.
I saw something similar in
strong Huckabee/Santorum southern Missouri. Southeast Missouri voted
heavily for Trump, but southwest Missouri for Cruz. Southeast Missouri
has high rates of disability insurance, an indicator of low workforce
participation and low social connectedness. Southwest Missouri,
headquarters of the Assemblies of God, has dense networks of civically
active churches.
Similarly, exit polls show Trump doing worse with
evangelicals who attend church weekly than with those who don't. This
helps explain why Trump carried South Carolina and lost Oklahoma, where
church attendance is higher.
Then there is majority-Mormon Utah, whose Mormon majority
has higher social connectedness than any other American group. Only 14
percent of Utah Republicans voted for Trump.
Putnam reports that
social connectedness is highest in states with large Scandinavian- and
German-American populations and in Utah. It's lowest in -- no surprise
-- Nevada, one of Trump's best states.
Democrats
On the Democrat side, there was Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders.
Yeah, there was Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chafee at the start, but they gain no traction. Jim Webb was too conservative for most Democrats, Martin O'Malley's reputation was ruined with the Baltimore riots last year, and Lincoln Chafee just doesn't excite crowds.
But Bernie Sanders excite crowds.
Whereas many assumed Hillary Clinton will just skate through the primaries just on name recognition alone, Bernie Sanders gained momentum by appealing to angry young liberals who feel that Hillary Clinton was just "business as usual".
Many young millennials are angry that they are (or will be) saddled with huge education debts and wonder "why can't we be more like Germany, which offers free college education for all?" They also wondered "why can't we have more government-subsidized health care?" and "why can't we have a higher minimum wage?"
Many of those millennials grew up in a time affected by the 2008 recession in which many of their parents were either laid off, had hours reduced or were just affected by rising costs. The 2008 recession made many millennials suspicious of the benefits of capitalism and wanted an economic system more like the Scandinavian countries.
While many Scandinavian countries had the reputations of being "socialists", their economies are mostly capitalists, with more government benefits added to the mix.
Also, in this day & age, many people chose to identify themselves with the slurs once used against them. It's like "you conservatives call me socialist? Oh yeah, I'm socialist then!" Sort of like NWA calling themselves...................NWA, or female rappers calling themselves the "baddest b----"
Bernie Sanders was more lenient on gun control, mostly due to Vermont being a rural state without much violence. But even then, he supported background checks. But he didn't agree with suing gun-makers for what people do with them. Being that most of his campaign was done before the Orlando shootings, his leniency on gun issues wasn't yet the "instant ewww" that could drive progressives away.
However, Bernie Sanders couldn't overcome the financial advantages and political connections that Hillary Clinton.
For one thing, Hillary Clinton had strong connections throughout the North and the South! Bernie Sanders only had experience in the Northeast (being that he was born in New York and spent his adult years in Vermont).
Bernie Sanders did protest for civil rights in the 1960's, but spent most of his political career in Vermont, which is overwhelmingly European-American.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton (while born in Illinois, and went to college in the Northeast) married Bill Clinton of Arkansas, and therefore gained major political connections throughout the South. She then moved to New York after her husband's presidency.
Therefore, Hillary Clinton already had a strong network of African-American politicians and ministers to help her while campaigning in the South, as well as in the Northeast. She also had strong Puerto Rican connections in New York. Add to that, Bernie Sanders not taking Fidel Castro's human rights violations seriously hurt him big time in Florida, which has a Cuban-American population traumatized by Fidel Castro!
With Hillary's support among older African-American & Latino voters gave the image that Bernie Sanders only getting "white voters", while ignoring that younger African-American & Latinos more likely to support Bernie Sanders than their older counterparts.
That plus Sanders getting victories in mostly "white" states in the Midwest and Rocky Mountains.
However, in late March, when Sanders won Hawaii (mostly Asians & Pacific Islanders), Washington State (lots of Asians in Seattle) and Alaska (lots of Asians and Inuits), CNN still insisted on emphasizing that Bernie Sanders winning "white states". Hawaii a white state? Are you kidding me?
That led to the hashtag #BernieMadeMeWhite by many non-white Sanders supporters.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-berniemademewhite-was-trending-after-sanders-160148852.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/berniemademewhite-meet-the-black-writer-who-called-out-the-media-for-erasing-people-of-color/
But by the time the campaign moved to California, Hillary Clinton pretty much got all the pledged delegates she needed! Had California voted in April (few weeks after Hawaii, Washington, Alaska), Sanders might've had a better chance!
------
Another thing, Hillary Clinton was seen as the more "centrist" candidate but yet getting more African-American support. This disproves the stereotype promoted by many BLM activists that African-Americans are super-left-wing. They're not! Yes, they want more government funding of community programs and definitely want a less oppressive law enforcement system. But the older ones who are more likely to vote aren't going to agree with BLM protests that alienated potential allies (ie blocking traffic, making loud chants at university libraries).
Also, despite the protest at a South Carolina fundraiser, most African-Americans in South Carolina understood when Hillary Clinton was referring to young gang-members as "super-predators", that
she was NOT referring to young African-Americans (or other non-white minorites) in general, but was referring specifically to youth gang members!
Also, while many African-American and Latinos want more funding of community programs and less oppressive law enforcement (both things making them more likely to side with liberals), many of them are also socially conservative and want incremental change promised by Hillary Clinton rather than radical change promised by Bernie Sanders.
Also, as voting trends showed in Hawaii, Alaska and Washington State, the Asians & Pacific Islanders were more likely to support Bernie Sanders than African-Americans or Latinos. Those difference might disappoint those who want more unity among so-called "people of color" but different cultural groups are appealed to different ways.
Though in a more positive note, Bernie Sanders proved that a Jewish person can gain the vote of many Arab-American voters, as was shown by results in Michigan and Illinois where many Arab-Americans have settled.
-----------------------
Bernie Sanders does have a loud voice and didn't back down from defending his ideas.
but even with that, I thought he should've been more agressive against Hillary Clinton's weaknesses
Last year, in a debate, he said he was sick of hearing about Hillary Clinton's email controversy!
Bad move!
He could've easily use the email controversy as a way to show Hillary Clinton couldn't be trusted!
Also, he could've took advantage of the sexual abuse allegations against Bill Clinton against Hillary Clinton!
You see this ad by Donald Trump targeting Bill Clinton's sexual abuse allegations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyI2okq4h1U
People might view that ad as being hypocritical for Donald Trump to make................but................ that ad would've worked better if Bernie Sanders made it because Sanders doesn't have the bully reputation that Trump has!
Also, that type of ad would've been an effective counter-punch against Radical Feminists who tired to shame millennial women who refused to vote Hillary Clinton!
