blackberry changes and the future of physical keyboards

The world has been so focused on this year's strange election that I wasn't paying attention when BlackBerry announced that it will be moving away from manufacturing smartphones and just focusing on software security.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/technology/blackberry-phones-earnings-q2.html

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia — Stepping away from its signature product, BlackBerry will no longer make its own smartphones, the device it once defined.

 Before being overtaken by iPhones from Apple, BlackBerry’s phones were so popular that they were nicknamed CrackBerry, and President Obama battled security officials to retain his BlackBerry when he took office. But the distressed Canadian company’s decision, announced on Wednesday, means the BlackBerry name will now be found only on handsets made by a group owned by phone companies in Indonesia, which has licensed the brand.

BlackBerry’s market share long ago collapsed to single digits in North America and Europe, despite the introduction of a new operating system and the company’s decision to make phones based on the Android operating system from Google.

The abandoning of the phone business that made BlackBerry a household name is a major step in a strategy begun by John S. Chen, the executive chairman and chief executive, to turn the money-losing company into a software and wireless device security business. When Mr. Chen joined BlackBerry almost three years ago, he made it clear that the fast-declining phone business was living on borrowed time.

“We have decided to discontinue all the handset hardware development,” Mr. Chen said Wednesday on a conference call for analysts. “We believe that this is the best way to drive profitability in the device business.”

and also this

 BlackBerry has the option of reselling the phones carrying its brand name and made by BB Merah Putih in Indonesia throughout the rest of the world. But Mr. Chen said the company had decided not to exercise that option. As a result, he said, sales of BlackBerry phones outside Indonesia will finish before the end of February 2017, the close of the company’s fiscal year.

This was very heart-breaking news for me because BlackBerry was the only smartphone manufacturer that made smartphones with a physical keyboard, which I find easier to use than use a touchscreen keyboard.

As mentioned in previous blog posts

 I  hate   typing on touchscreens because they are either

• too finger sensitive

OR

•  requires a hard press on the screen.

My BlackBerry Q10 still works well!

But my fear that it would get broken or stolen has a new meaning for me!


Those whose iPhone gets broken or stolen can go to a store and get a new one easily!

Even those whose flip-phone gets broken or stolen can go to a store and get a new one easily!

For those who like the convenience of a physical keyboard on a smartphone are out of luck soon! 

That is .....unless some other company picks up the slack in manufacturing the smartphone with the physical keyboard as indicated in E-Commerce Times and Bloomberg News





https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/blackberry-s-keyboard-is-coming-back-for-one-last-dance

Under Chen, BlackBerry has gradually shifted from smartphones to software and said in September it would completely stop producing, stocking and distributing its own phones. Instead, it will license the BlackBerry brand to outside companies to put on phones they build themselves. The physical keyboard is BlackBerry’s best-known smartphone feature, with many former users still lamenting its absence as they clumsily tap out e-mails on their iPhones and sign off with words like "pardon the typos."

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/84085.html

Google and Apple were able to bring the smartphone to the masses with touchscreen-enabled devices, but that leaves open the door for another market segment.

"Not everyone likes touchscreens, so there is a niche market for a BlackBerry with a physical keyboard," said William Stofega, program director for mobile phones at IDC.

"There are executives and others who like the physical keyboard, and if BlackBerry can make a case that they can fill this need, then they can have a small part of the market," he told the E-Commerce Times.

More importantly, "BlackBerry can still make money serving its legacy tail, and this move appears aimed at that market," said Steve Blum, principal analyst at Tellus Venture Associates.

"Assuming they're contracting out manufacturing and they have a reasonably accurate sales forecast, there's no reason not to keep targeting their legacy market, so long as it's at least minimally profitable," he told the E-Commerce Times.

With partners doing the manufacturing, the risk could be low, added Stofega

Whoever is manufacturing that physical keyboard phone, they better do a better job marketing it!

As I mentioned in previous blog posts, BlackBerry's main reason for their business failure is the failure to market their products



http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2013/10/adventures-on-my-new-smartphone.html

The problem is that BlackBerry doesn't have a real marketing strategy!

A marketing strategy for smartphones isn't just about its usability. 

It's about marketing it as a fashion accessory. 


That's what Apple does everytime they introduce their product. They make it an event, a place to be seen while standing in long-lines. This makes the Apple i-phones "cool" in the eyes of many!


This was from a mass-email from advice columnist John Alanis that I got on March 2012 

Here's the interesting thing you should know about the iPad:  every attempt to create a knockoff of it has been a miserable failure. 

No other company has been able to make a tablet computer that people want.

Why?  Because they think they are in the tablet business.  But no one wants a tablet computer--they're mostly useless.  However, everyone wants to be cool, and only Apple realizes they're in the coolness business.

You see,  having an iPad is considered cool. Having a Samsung Galaxy is not.  Apple is cool, everything else is uncool and they've built their whole company around that.  Not only that, but having the latest iPad is extremely cool, while having an old one
is not so cool anymore.

Apple has figured it out.  People want to be cool, and will pay for it, even if it involves forking over $700 a year for a mostly useless device (did you hear about the new HD screen on the latest iPad...cool, huh?).

Well, apparently, Samsung had gotten hold of this mass e-mail because they responded with this ad!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJafiCKliA8

That ad made the people who stood in long-line for Apple stuff look like suckers!  The slogan "The Next Big Thing is Already Here"

That ad made the SamSung Galaxy part of the "coolness business" that the mass e-mail was talking about! 



And Microsoft must've gotten a hold of the same mass-email because they responded with this ad!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE7AQY5Xk9w 

That ad mocked the i-pad as "not user friendly" AND for not having a keyboard!

Now many say that BlackBerry's marketing campaign was to just focus on the business users and to not get caught up with pop culture fads.


When Kim Kardashian and Leonardo DiCaprio were photographed using a BlackBerry, many BlackBerry fans said  "hey, this is an opportunity, they're using, might as well hire them to appear in your ads!"

BlackBerry's CEO  responded that he was happy that they were using a BlackBerry but would prefer to use a different marketing strategy!

Are you kidding me?

Any company losing market-share that notices a high-profile celebrity using its products should be contacting them IMMEDIATELY for an advertising campaign! 


BlackBerry wanted a business-oriented marketing campaign but didn't realize that business-people are also pop-culture oriented people who are fascinated by anything trendy, whether it's a celebrity-endorsed device, and device that was advertised by a funny commercial (ie. SamSung) , or a device whose release is seen as a major event (iPhone).

Once iPhone and SamSung made their marketing blitz and became pop-culture phenomenon, business oriented people get caught up in their craze like everyone else!


BlackBerry shoud've supplement their business oriented marketing strategy with a pop-culture oriented strategy!  A strategy that shows that their device is useful for work AND play! 


I really hope whoever gets to manufacture any future physical keyboards could come up with a great marketing strategy to make physical keyboards "retro cool", good for "work & play".

I'll even supply some music for a soundtrack if they need music (and yes, they will need music)
(check out https://pablothemadtigerwarrior.blogspot.com/p/tracks.html for my music)

But whatever happens, I hope that if my current BlackBerry Q10 gets broken, lost or stolen, that I will still be able to get a smartphone with a physical keyboard.


My mental health depends on it! 



==============

PS: also check out my blog post from January 2014  http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2014/01/blackberrys-response-to-competition.html

my letter to the newspaper: Hawaii, independence and prosperity

I haven't written a letter to the local papers in a while, but  I had to say something to get people thinking that Make Hawaii Independent Again can have some economic benefits.

Last Friday, a person wrote a letter expressing that Hawaii can't survive without federal subsidies. 

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/02/editorial/letters/help-real-farmers-not-agribusiness/  (go to the 5th letter in that link)

So I thought it was time to get the people of Hawaii to think of the possibilities of how Hawaii can still be economically prosperous without relying on federal subsidies.

So I wrote a letter that was published in today's edition of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/08/editorial/letters/does-matayoshi-deserves-support/?HSA=04262e80d789ec1e84717fa266a7d124ce348574  (look for last letter in that link)

Here it is

Hawaii doesn’t need federal welfare

A letter writer dismissed the idea of Hawaii’s independence from the U.S. by saying, “Hawaii couldn’t hold out for 24 hours without the massive welfare payments it receives from the federal government” (“Hawaii depends on federal largesse,” Star-Advertiser, Letters, Dec. 2).

But we don’t need to be dependent on federal money. Federal money is taxpayer money.

Why pay taxes to the federal government when we can be independent and keep our tax revenues here?

Also, Hawaii can find alternatives to subsidies to be prosperous. For example, by becoming independent, we are no longer held hostage by the Jones Act, a federal law that makes onerous restrictions on what ships can go from one U.S. port to another.

With independence, Hawaii would no longer be constrained by the Jones Act and would have greater access to international trade.

Singapore is an independent, prosperous city-state that doesn’t rely on foreign government subsidies.

If Singapore can do it, why not us?

Pablo Wegesend

Obviously, there's more to making an independent Hawaii prosperous, but it's a letter to the editor, which means I had to compress my thoughts in so many words. But I hope it got some people to think of the possibilities.


One of my facebook friends mentioned that Singapore has an advantage due to its larger population, location near other countries, and its trade pact with Australia.

But still, any location has its pros & cons, it's what you do with it that matters most!


Now, for the comments section to that letter, as listed on
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/08/editorial/letters/does-matayoshi-deserves-support/?HSA=04262e80d789ec1e84717fa266a7d124ce348574

reamesr1 says: 

December 8, 2016 at 5:28 am 

Pablo Hawaii cannot do it because there are too many useless politicians out there feeding from the Federal trough.

inlanikai says: 

December 8, 2016 at 7:33 am 

Singapore is a single government city-state. No layers of government like in Hawaii. They also do not have many of the personal freedoms and protections we enjoy here. When Singapore became independent in the 1960s there was a strong leader who ruled with almost absolute authority in exchange for giving the people a better way of life than they had with law and order. I doubt the people of Hawaii would trust that that deal to today’s crop of local politicians.  

SHOPOHOLIC says:
December 8, 2016 at 7:50 am
Well put.
If Hawaii were to ever have a “benevolent dictatorship”, it would be ruined immediately by some bumbling, greedy incompetent. Just look at the state leg for examples or an Albert Hee type.

 and also this

soundofreason says:
December 8, 2016 at 7:25 am 

“Singapore is an independent, prosperous city-state that doesn’t rely on foreign government subsidies.If Singapore can do it, why not us?”>>> Here’s why…Exports, particularly in electronics, chemicals and services including Singapore’s position as the regional hub for wealth management[22][23][24] provide the main source of revenue for the economySo, what I make of Singapore’s success is…you would actually have to DO/MAKE something to succeed. I know, sounds a lot like “work”.

 inlanikai says  

:December 8, 2016 at 7:35 am

Singapore is also uniquely positioned geographically to support global trade.

SHOPOHOLIC says

:December 8, 2016 at 7:55 am

And an educated population with societal/personal values and (mostly) Confucian values that clash starkly with American “values” of individualism, selfishness and knowing one’s rights 24/7.

Ronin006 says:
December 8, 2016 at 6:09 pm
Guam residents pay US income tax, all of which remains on Guam to support the government of Guam. Nevertheless, Guam is dependent entirely on the Federal government to pay millions of dollars annually for social welfare programs. There is no reason to believe it would be different for Hawaii if it was to become independent.

•  Lots of great thoughts, I'm just happy to start a conversation on this issue!

Also, check out UH cultural anthropology professor Alan Howard's editorial supporting Hawaii's Independence at 

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/11/29/editorial/island-voices/hawaii-should-consider-seceding-from-u-s/

Much of the article was focused on the differing mentalities between blue states (Democrat-voting states) and red states (Republican-voting states), and then it mentioned this

Here's one quote from the article

Unlikely as it is to materialize, there has been post-election sentiment expressed in West Coast states in favor of secession based on the overwhelming desire by a great many people of blue persuasion to dissociate from the reds. 

In (blue) Hawaii, we understand these emotions, but we have a better case than most for secession, given that Hawaii was illegally annexed by the United States in the first place. I propose that we engage in serious discussions about the costs and benefits of secession, on the grounds not only of economics but also of a moral commitment to a worldview that differs so radically from red America.

Fidel in Hell

Finally, after all those decades, Fidel Castro is finally in Hell!

Fidel Castro was the Cuban dictator since the1959,  after he overthrew the previous dictator Fulgencio Batista! While Batista was a truly corrupt ruler, it wasn't until Fidel Castro took over when thousands upon thousands of Cubans ran for their lives. Most of them escaped to the USA (being that Florida was only 90 miles away) while others escaped to Spain, Mexico or other Spanish-speaking countries.

Fidel Castro came with the agenda of ending class inequality, but it came with massive confiscations of private property. Those who disagreed (even those who were former supporters) were tortured and killed! 



From the article published in the Miami Herald right after his death
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article117191773.html

The history of Latin America is replete with the names of dictators who ruled by fear and violence, including some of Castro’s contemporaries, from Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay to Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. But Fidel Castro outdid them all because his regime was the most oppressive — and most enduring. Petty tyrants like Peru’s Alberto Fujimori and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez came and went. Castro endured.

The painful price that his suffocating tyranny exacted on the Cuban people is impossible to measure, but safe to say that there is hardly a single freedom recognized by civilized countries around the world that Fidel Castro did not violate.

In one of the great paradoxes of the era, Castro successfully posed as a champion of the downtrodden around the world, even as he trampled on the rights of downtrodden Cubans. His many admirers abroad chose to ignore, and illogically justify, his denial of freedom to the people of Cuba even as they fought for the right to enjoy civil liberties and freedoms at home.

Revolutionary violence and human-rights abuses were there from the start. First came the summary executions of those who supported the Fulgencio Batista regime that Castro overthrew — and later of counter-revolutionaries, many of whom had fought against Batista at Castro’s side. Castro’s firing squads executed upwards of 18,000 Cubans. Others were sent to unendurably wretched prisons to serve 20-plus years.

This laid the groundwork for the regime’s machinery of repression. Its diabolical aim: to instill absolute obedience through fear. Gays, Jehovah’s Witnesses, outspoken Catholics and those deemed anti-social for disagreeing with Castro doctrine were sent to labor camps for “reeducation.’’

Later, mobs known as Rapid Response Brigades berated, hurled rocks at and assaulted Cubans leaving during the Mariel boatlift. They did the same to regime critics. State security agents infiltrated, divided and destroyed dissident organizations. They psychologically and physically tortured countless individuals who had been denounced as threats to the regime.

From the beginning, many Cubans chose to flee rather than to tolerate the lack of freedom as Castro effectively turned Cuba from a nation of grateful immigrants into a country of desperate emigrants. In Miami-Dade County alone, the population either born in Cuba or descended from Cuban immigrants in 2010 was 856,000, with some estimates of the worldwide diaspora at 3 million. In effect, Castro changed the face of our community forever.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article117191773.html#storylink=cpy

Because Fidel Castro talked a good game about ending socio-economic equality, many left-wingers around the world thought he was a hero! They thought of him as a "guy who stood to the American empire", even though he was just a proxy of the Soviet empire! 

He talked about bringing racial equality to Cuban nevermind that he overthrew the previous dictator who was partly of African ancestry. Castro was a son of Spanish immigrants.  So in other words, a descendant of European immigrants replaced a leader with some African ancestry! Doesn't that sound like Donald Trump replacing Barack Obama!

Yes, Fidel Castro sent troops and moral support to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa!  But it seemed that Castro's support was more to do with Cold War politics than anything else! Sadly, the USA supported any government claiming to be anti-communist, desperate for allies against the communist Soviet empire. So the USA supported the apartheid regime in South Africa, as well as supported ruthless dictators in Chile, Philippines, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and more -- all in the name of "fighting communism".  Because the anti-apartheid movement was going against the ally of the US, Fidel Castro saw a public relations opportunity and supported the African National Congress (ANC), an anti-apartheid organization. But because ANC accepted the support of Fidel Castro, many hard-line foreign policy hawks in the USA (ie. Dick Cheney, Jesse Helms) viewed the ANC as "communists".   Well, after apartheid ended, the ANC's leader Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa, and didn't rule like a communist at all! The country was still open to capitalism, and more importantly, became a land of political freedom for all!


Meahwhile, some left-wingers claim that Castro increased literacy rates and health care in Cuba.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/stop-praising-castro-for-health-and-education-advances/article/2608334?custom_click=rss

To the question of education, Bader argued: "Cuba had about the same literacy rate as Costa Rica and Chile in 1950 (close to 80 percent). And it has almost the same literacy rate as they do today (close to 100 percent)."

He continued:

Meanwhile, Latin American countries that were largely illiterate in 1950 — such as Peru, Brazil, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic — are largely literate today, closing much of the gap with Cuba. El Salvador had a less than 40 percent literacy rate in 1950, but has an 88 percent literacy rate today. Brazil and Peru had a less than 50 percent literacy rate in 1950, but today, Peru has a 94.5 percent literacy rate, and Brazil a 92.6 percent literacy rate. The Dominican Republic's rate rose from a little over 40 percent to 91.8 percent. While Cuba made substantial progress in reducing illiteracy in Castro's first years in power, its educational system has stagnated since, even as much of Latin America improved.

And to the question of Cuban healthcare, it's actually quite good – if you're lucky enough to get it.

There are three tiers to Cuba's healthcare system, according to National Review's Jay Nordlinger.
"The first is for foreigners who come to Cuba specifically for medical care. This is known as "medical tourism." The tourists pay in hard currency, which provides oxygen to the regime. And the facilities in which they are treated are First World: clean, well supplied, state-of-the-art," he wrote, citing Jaime Suchlicki of the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies.

Nordlinger continued:

The foreigners-only facilities do a big business in what you might call vanity treatments: Botox, liposuction, and breast implants. Remember, too, that there are many separate, or segregated, facilities on Cuba. People speak of "tourism apartheid." For example, there are separate hotels, separate beaches, separate restaurants — separate everything. As you can well imagine, this causes widespread resentment in the general population. The second health-care system is for Cuban elites — the Party, the military, official artists and writers, and so on. In the Soviet Union, these people were called the "nomenklatura."'

And their system, like the one for medical tourists, is top-notch. Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched. Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. Hospitals and clinics are crumbling. Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, whatever home is. If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce. In Sicko, even sophisticated medications are plentiful and cheap. In the real Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market.

[…]

The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent. Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice. When they travel to the island, on errands of mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry. One told the Associated Press, "The [Cuban] doctors are pretty well trained, but they have nothing to work with. It's like operating with knives and spoons." 

 

A petition to Make Hawaii Independent Again

I have started an online petition to Hawaii's elected officials (the governor, legislature, Office of Hawaiian Affairs) to start taking steps to Make Hawaii Independent Again.

You can sign that petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/523/613/285/


Here is the letter that comes with the petition

To Hawaii's elected leaders,

With the election of Donald Trump as the president of the United States, it is time to reconsider whether Hawaii should continue being a part the United States.

The majority of Hawaii's residents didn't vote for Donald Trump! The majority of Hawaii's resident do not share the values of Donald Trump!  We do not want to live under a leader who openly appeals to the ugly prejudices of his fanbase. We do not want to live under a leader with his style of abrasive, deplorable, abusive and erratic behavior!The people of Hawaii do not have to put up with any of that!

With independence, Hawaii will no longer be dependent of the whims of the voters of Ohio and Florida every 4 years. 

With independence, all the laws we follow reflect our values, instead of the values of voters from faraway states.

With independence, all of our tax revenue stays here. No longer do we send our tax revenue to Washington DC where the senators and representatives from the other states argue over what to do with the money we already paid for. We keep our tax revenues here, and we have total control over what our tax revenue pays for.

With independence, we can control our own military defense. We already have the National Guard's infrastructure to start building up our own military. But this time, no longer do we send our tax money and our soldiers to military bases far outside our borders to intervene in another country's business.

With independence, we have more access to international trade. No longer will have our access to international trade be restricted by the Jones Act. a federal shipping law that puts excessive burdens on our geographically isolated islands.

With independence, we can be a small prosperous nation. If Singapore can do it, why not us?


It is time for Hawaii's elected leaders to take the initiative. It is time for Hawaii's elected leaders to openly discuss the benefits and challenges of becoming an independent nation.  It is time for Hawaii's elected leaders to encourage Hawaii residents to vote for independence. It is time for Hawaii's elected leaders to take all the other necessary steps to regain our island's independence from the United States. It is time to transition.

Hawaii has already experienced being a multi-racial independent nation that was open to the ideas, products and cultures of the world in the 1800's. Hawaii can be that again.
It is time to Make Hawaii Independent Again.

If you haven't read it already, here is the link to the blog post in which I supported the effort to Make Hawaii Independent Again
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2016/11/its-time-for-hawaii-to-declare.html


and my video speeches to support Hawaii's independence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGwunh5km4k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14clKuEmC0k

General Election 2016

This year's election has been like no other!

We had 2 major candidates (Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton) who had won their party's primaries but alienated the general public.

We also had 3rd party candidates who had some appeal to those alienated voters. That would include Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Evan McMullin.

But only 1 could be the winner!

1) Winning the Electoral Vote

Hillary Clinton got the most voters, but that's not what counts in US presidential elections.

What counts is the Electoral College, in which each state gets a certain # of votes.  With that, Donald Trump has won!

Presidential campaigns use strategies to win the Electoral College. They use strategies to spend the most time & money to win over states that could go either way.

So instead of campaigning in states where the Republicans are guaranteed to win (ie. Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Oklahoma  etc) or where the Democrats are guaranteed to win (ie. California, New York, Hawaii, Massachussetts, etc.), the candidates spend most of their time in states that are no easy guarantees (ie. Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc)

If the US presidential elections were decided on the popular votes, the campaigns would have been run differently.  Both Trump & Clinton would've spent more campaigning in New York, California, Texas or Illinois. The results would've been different.

Being that's the case, Hillary Clinton campaign failed. She knew way ahead of time that the elections are decided on the Electoral College, her campaign was structured in an attempt to win the Electoral College, and the results didn't go her way!

2) Donald Trump's victory

The Republican Party was at a crossroad.

For the last few decades, they relied on religious social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign policy hawks.  The Republican Party had much success with European-Americans, not so much with non-white minorities (with the exception being Cuban-American activists who can't forgive the Democrats for not being tough enough on Fidel Castro).

With the non-white population increasing (especially the Latinos and Asians), it seemed urgent for the Republicans to do more outreach. George W. Bush was planning for a more lenient immigration policy.  However, much of the European-American who traditionally supported Republicans are alienated by any talk of a lenient immigration policy.

Jeb Bush wanted to continue his brother's plan for a lenient immigration policy. Donald Trump hedged his bets on European-Americans who felt economically & physically threatened by Latino & Muslim immigrants.  Donald Trump was a loudmouth who relished verbal combat. Jeb Bush was a gentle soul that didn't stand a chance.

Ted Cruz was a favorite among many social conservatives but alienated everyone else. Donald Trump wasn't anywhere close to a social conservative, but he knew that many working-class European-Americans who didn't live by social conservative values but  who were alienated by any talk of diversity!

Marco Rubio was a dream candidate for those who felt Republicans need to do more outreach among Latinos and other racial minorities. However, his plan for limited amnesty for illegal immigrants alienated European-Americans who felt he was "assisting law-breakers".

The other candidates included governors (Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, John Gilmore, John Kasich) who don't excite crowds the way Donald Trump does.

Besides his anti-immigration talk, what stood out for Donald Trump was his aggressive criticism of trade deals that George Bush (the father and the son) supported. Many voters in the industrial Midwest blamed those trade deals for their job losses. Some companies moved their factories to Mexico or China. Donald Trump loudly claim that past presidents made bad deals with Mexico & China!

The industrial Midwest was long alienated from the Bushes support of those trade deals. John McCain & Mitt Romney supported those same trade deals. Obama criticized those deals and earned the Midwest votes in 2008 & 2012.

Donald Trump also appealed to the people of Appalachian region which has long been called "coal country".  Many in the region were alienated by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's environmental policies to reduce the use of coal, and felt that Hillary Clinton was a threat to their jobs.  They also felt that the hype of solar panels wouldn't help since the solar panels would most likely be made in China


=======

With all that, Donald Trump's strategy was

• appeal to European-Americans who were afraid of Latino & Muslim immigration
• appeal to Midwest voters alienated by foreign trade deals
• appeal to coal miners who feel Obama/Hillary's environmental policies were threatening their jobs
• appeal to nervous European-American alienated by urban riots associated with African-Americans protesting police brutality
• yell "political correctness" when confronted by any criticism of his racial fears & his harsh response to female critics
• pick Mike Pence as VP to appeal to social conservatives alienated by Trump's vulgar personality & hedonistic past

All of that attracted big passionate crowds. All of that attracted supporters who were turned of by your usual boring politicians.

But many wondered if that would be effective in an era where the non-white population was growing, the younger generation was becoming more liberal, and where women were now becoming less hesitant about calling themselves "feminists" 

It didn't win him the popular vote, but as I mentioned earlier, that doesnt matter. Presidents are picked by the Electoral College, and presidential campaigns are designed to win that!

Too many working-class Europeans didn't care how dangerous Donald Trump's anti-nonwhite immigration rhetoric was to many nonwhite ethnic minority!  They didn't have an Instant Gag Reflex to his comments about Mexican immigrants brining drugs, crime and rape! They didn't have an Instant Gag Reflex to his comments about Syrian refugees (and Muslims in general) being a national security threat!

Many Trump supporters might insist "I'm not a racist, I'm nice to my African-American co-worker, I'm nice to that Latina who cleans up my workplace, I don't commit hate crimes" But the fact remains that they supported a man who made aggressive anti-immigration propaganda, and a man who gave moral support to white supremacist thugs who now use "Build a Wall" as a new way of saying  "Go back to Mexico you f------- wetback"

But what about his opponent, Hillary Clinton?

What was it about her that lost to this  racist loudmouth?

3) Hillary's loss

She started the primary campaign with name recognition, prestige and big money donors. She was the "Establishment candidate".

However, many millennial liberals felt the Establishment failed them. They are a generation that is saddled with college debt! They are the generation that felt the sting of the Recession partially caused by the banks that gave big donations to Hillary Clinton. They are a generation with strong ideals for a pacifist foreign policy whereas Hillary Clinton supported a more hawkish forcing policy. They are a generation with strong ideals on free college, and universal health care whereas they feel Hillary Clinton doesn't right hard enough for those ideals   They are a generation in which LGBT rights are nothing to hesitate about, and Hillary Clinton spent a whole career being hesitant on the issue.

For that millennial liberals, Bernie Sanders was their man.  He gave them everything they wanted to hear: a more pacifist foreign policy, more taxes on the wealthy, less tax breaks for the corporations, universal health care, free college education, and LGBT rights!

Bernie Sanders also appealed to the factory workers in the Northeast and Midwest who feel they are losing their jobs due to trade deals that Bill Clinton signed into law.

Bernie Sanders also appealed to the environmentalists who feel that Hillary Clinton was too compromised by her corporate connections, as well as human rights activists who feel that Hillary Clinton was too compromised by the donations by the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE to her charity foundation.

However, Bernie Sanders was a "johnny come lately". He was an Independent for decades, only a recent joiner to the democratic party!  He also started without much campaign funds, name recognition or media coverage.

Though he was a civil rights activist in the 1960s, he spent much of his political career in Vermont, a mostly European-American state which left him inexperienced when it comes to campaigning for votes from African-Americans & Hispanics. Whereas Hillary Clinton spent  much of her political career in Arkansas and New York, and therefore had an extended network of African-American & Latino politicians and ministers.  This especially helped her in getting primary votes in the South (where lot of African-Americans live) and in California/Florida/New York (where a lot of Latinos live).

Bernie Sanders campaign was savvy with social media which helped with millenials. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton had experience with traditional voter outreach which helped her with older folks(who vote more than the younger folks).
====

The primary campaign ended in June! It was too little, too late for Bernie Sanders, who was able to gain a passionate fanbase in a short amount of time!

However, when the convention happened in July, hacked emails revealed to the public exposed how the Democrat National Committee were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. This angered the Sanders supporters who felt the system was rigged against the candidate.

Also, Hillary Clinton had many other scandals.

Her use of a private email server while Secretary of State gave the impression that she had something to hide.

She wasn't forthcoming on the circumstances of the Benghazi embassy attacks made her less-than-trustworthy on national security.

Her husband Bill Clinton's sexual assault allegations, long forgotten, had now become exposed to a new generation that is now less forgiving about sexual assault allegations.

Hillary's defenders will claim all those scandals are a "smear campaign of a vast right-wing conspiracy".

But people know better. Donald Trump exploited all that!  Unlike Bernie Sanders, he was willing to loudly talk about those scandals and how they make Hillary Clinton a less trustworthy leader.

=======

Hillary Clinton could've picked someone to appeal to Sander's supporters. Instead, she picked a moderate Virginia governor Tim Kaine.

 In hindsight, that didn't work well,  In his one chance to be heard by the general public, Tim Kaine kept interrupting Mike Pence during the VP debate. Mike Pence sounded more presidential whereas Tim Kaine sounded like a goofy know-it-all who can't pick his battles wisely.

Hillary Clinton might've been better picking a younger African-American liberal who speak across racial lines. The reason I say that is because the African-American voter turnout declined this year, and that could've made a difference in the industrial Midwest states where she lost in the Electoral College.

=================

Would Bernie Sanders beat Donald Trump?

He would've neutralized Trump on the trade issue in the industrial Midwest. He had a better chance to win there than Hillary did!

Bernie Sanders also understand that anti-gun fanaticism was poison in the Midwest as well as the more rural regions.  Hillary Clinton wanted to sue gun manufacturers, Bernie Sanders didn't.  Advantage to Bernie on this issue! 

Bernie Sanders didn't have the email scandal, Benghazi scandal, Bill Clinton sexual assault scandal.  

However, Bernie Sanders would've lost Florida, being that his past statements praising Fidel Castro alienated Cuban-Americans.

Joe Biden might also might have been a better candidate to go against Donald Trump.  He was picked by Obama as VP because of his ability to communicate with working-class European-American voters.  That in itself would've been an asset to win the industrial Midwest this year.

Also, Joe Biden would've been the perfect guy to go against Donald Trump, because Joe Biden relishes the verbal combat. 
 The "high road" doesn't work against Donald Trump.
You need a powerful take-no-crap attitude when going up against Donald Trump!
You need an "eff the pollsters, I'm going to say it" attitude when going up against Donald Trump!
Joe Biden had that important "it" to battle Donald Trump!

4) Other Voter Trends

Many thought that Donald Trump's recorded jokes about grabbing a woman's body parts, plus the sexual assault allegation would alienate women voters. 

It did some.

But Donald Trump still won most of the European-American women voters.

That doesn't surprise me!

Many women love a "bad boy", as long as he's not too bad to them.

It's not just European-American women.

Go to any nightclub playing hip-hop music, many women are dancing to songs about "bitches and hos". While most people in the club are paying more attention to the beat than the lyrics, the rappers who recite those lyrics have many screaming female fans running towards them. 

As for the sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump, had they come out sooner, there would've been less suspicion about the timing!

Plus, let's not forget that Hillary Clinton remained married to Bill years after all the sexual assault allegations against him became public.  So Hillary Clinton was not a credible person to criticize Donald Trump on the issue!  Bernie Sanders could've hit Donald Trump stronger on that issue!


Joe Biden could also make aggressive criticisms on that issue, though Donald Trump's campaigns could easily show videos of Biden giving shoulder rubs and squeezing face of female guests at functions. Granted, those videos are NOT rapes, NOR aggressive grabbing of private parts, but they would've put Joe Biden on the defensive and slowed his momentum.

====

Many expected a larger non-white voter turnout being that Donlad Trump said what he said about Mexican & Muslim immigration!

Latino & Asian voter turnout increased. Both groups had traditionally low voter turnout, so any increase would be noticeable!

The Latino vote was enough to keep Nevada & Colorado (both states won by Bush and Obama) in the Democrat column. Latino vote also made Hillary's already predicted winning margins even bigger.  It did make Arizona & Texas more Democrat friendly, but it wasn't enough to overcome the traditionally strong Republican leanings of that state!  Also, Donald Trump made a surprisingly good showing among Florida's Cuban-Americans who benefitted from a very lenient immigration policy that Trump didn't bother to go against.


Donald Trump did get slightly more Latino voters than Mitt Romney did in 2012. However, people forget that Romney did want a stricter immigration policy, he just said in softer tones than Trump did! Donald Trump did appeal to some American-born Latinos who resented more recent immigrants. That said both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush won a much larger level of Latino votes than Trump did!


However, the African-American vote decreased this year!  Part of it was because Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot this time around.  Yes, Hillary Clinton did gain support of older African-Americans living in the South, but that enthusiasm wasn't shared at the same level in other regions.

As mentioned earlier, the African-American vote went down so much in the Midwestern cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia that it made a difference between victory & defeat for Hillary Clinton for the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania!

Some African-American activists said the Democratic Party has taken the black voter for granted. It was true this year. As I mentioned, Hillary Clinton could've recruited a younger, progressive African-American politician as her VP! She probably now wish she did!

Also, Donald Trump had more African-American voters than Mitt Romney did a few years ago, His anti-immigration comments might've attracted a few African-American voters who resented Latino immigrants as "competition for jobs" as well as feared the presence of Latino gangs. 

5) Third parties

Jill Stein (Green Party) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian), both of whom ran for president in 2012, came back with a stronger presence in 2016!

Both benefitted from their experience in previous campaigns as well as the unappealing nature of the 2 major candidates.


Gary Johnson attracted many former Republicans who are alienated by the belligerent Donald Trump, as well as some Bernie Sanders supporters alienated by Hillary Clinton's foreign policy hawkishness!

Gary Johnson emphasized his executive experience as the former governor of New Mexico. For his VP, he  had Bill Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts.  This showed that the Libertarian Party candidates weren't just guys with ideas, but guys with experience, guys who were ready to take care of business!  They definitely increased the Libertarian vote to 4.8% 

However, there were things that could've been better for Gary Johnson. At an MSNBC interview, a reporter asked what he would do about Allepo. Gary Johnson's response "What is Allepo?" became the butt of many jokes.  

When told that Allepo was a city in Syria damaged by warfare and a center of the refugee crisis, Gary Johnson did say that US intervention in foreign conflicts made things worse. He was later able to discuss details of the Syrian crisis in later interviews. But it was too late, the "what is Allepo?" became one of the biggest sounbites to go viral!

It got so bad that an Alt-Right website which came up with derogatory code words for different ethnic & political groups has adopted the term " a llepo" to insult libertarians

Gary Johnson was also asked by another MSNBC reporter to pick his favorite foreign leader, and his mind went blank. As John Stossel later said, asking a libertarian about a favorite political leader is like asking a vegan about his/her favorite steak.  However, Johnson's non-answer added to the "what is Allepo?" jokes about his alleged ignorance of foreign policy.

Libertarians aren't interested in getting the US involved in foreign affairs, so that might've lead to Gary Johnson's brain-freeze on Allepo and foreign leaders. That said, many voters expect presidential candidates to be well-versed in foreign policy issues and the next Libertarian candidates will have to be well-versed too in order to avoid getting caught off-guard by reporter's questions. 


Also, William Weld's statements that hinted his support Hillary Clinton's victory undermined Gary Johnson's campaign, making it sound as if there was friction between Johnson & Weld!


=============


Jill Stein also had an increase in support in 2016 versus 2012. She attracted many progressives who were alienated by Hillary Clinton's foreign policy hawkishness, corporate connections, her husband's harsh criminal justice laws, and her husband's sexual assault allegations.  Many of those progressives were also angry at the Democratic National Committee favoritism towards Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the primaries. 

However, I think that because Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump (and not someone less scary like Jeb Bush, John Kasich or Marco Rubio), some of the progressives pinched their noses and reluctantly voted for Hillary Clinton just to prevent immigrant-bashing, p****y grabbing Donald Trump from being president.  

I think if Hillary Clinton was running against Jeb Bush (or John Kasich or Marco Rubio or anyone NOT Trump or Ted Cruz) that Jill Stein would've gotten even more votes this year!

==================


For conservative Republicans who were alienated by Donald Trump but were also uncomfortable about Gary Johnson's libertarian tendencies and foreign policy dovishness, there was Evan McMullin. He was a former CIA officer and foreign policy advisor who was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ & Latter Day Saints (LDS).

Because he wasn't attached to a political party and because he started his president campaign late, his name was on the ballot for only a few states. He did well in states with large Mormon populations (ie Utah, Idaho). 

Not sure what his future would be, but he could spend the next few years building a larger political base, and attract more voters alienated by Donald Trump. He might make a bigger impact in 2020!

For more on 3rd party candidates and their voter trends

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/where-the-third-party-candidates-were-st
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/gary-johnson-jill-stein-voters-clinton
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/21/bernie-sanders-got-nearly-6-percent-of-t

6) Hawaii

As usual, the Democrats gain the majority of the legislature, but this time, the Democrat NOT ONLY have a super-majority in the State Senate, they are EVERYBODY in the State Senate.


The lone Republican in the State Senate  ---- Sam Slom lost to a young progressive Stanley Chang!

Sam Slom long represented East Honolulu, the most Republican section of the island.

But why did he lose to a young progressive there?


I predicted in 2013 that Sam Slom's comments in an interview with Bill O'Reilly was going to end his career.

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2013/03/sam-slom-diverse-cultures-and-sex.html

Hawaii only has 1 Republican in its State Senate.
That would be Sam Slom! 

And if after next election, there is zero Republicans in the State Senate,  Sam Slom can blame ......................Sam Slom.


You see, a few days ago, Sam Slom was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly,  the Fox News host who thinks Hawaii laws are too lenient.


(Yeah, I do think Hawaii's justice system can be too lenient on violent offenders, like I mentioned on http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-lenient-is-too-lenient.html )

Anyways, Bill O'Reilly asked Sam Slom why Hawaii's politicians refuse to pass laws with harsher sentences for sexual offenders
 http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2013/03/15/why-does-hawaii-oppose-jessicas-law

 Here is Sam Slom's answer! 

SAM SLOM (R), HAWAII, STATE SENATOR: Well, aloha, Bill. The only thing I can tell you is basically what they say. And I think it's a case of misplaced compassion, compassion for perpetrators and there's also an underlying cultural problem here where some of our diverse cultures actually don't see any problem or any crime in having sexual relations with young children.

 You see what I highlighted in red?

And you wonder why Republicans are struggling with minority communities?

You would think Sam Slom, a Hawaii senator would know better.

Apparently not!

Granted, Stanley Chang didn't mention this issue in the campaign : He didn't have to!

Once Sam Slom said his comments, it became something you just can't unhear!

Once Sam Slom said his comment, he became poisonous to himself!

And the thing was that I used to respect Sam Slom. He was known as an advocate for small businesses, and he brought an entrepreneurial perspective to a state legislature filled with lawyers, union activists and semi-socialists.

All that went down the drain when Sam Slom made his comments, and he has only himself to blame.