Archives for 2016

It is becoming horrifyingly clearer by the day, Donald Trump will be the Republican presidential nominee. Trump is on a roll having won three of the first four Republican primary contests. If Trump has a good showing on Super Tuesday, March 2, and continues to win afterward — even by small margins — he will most likely win the nomination.

About the only way Trump can be stopped is if he wins most of the delegates but not enough to put him over the 1,237 needed to secure the nomination at the GOP convention in July. In such a case, it’s anybody’s guess what might happen then. Could Mitt Romney be trotted out by the Republican establishment as the Party’s savior? How about Paul Ryan?

Republicans find themselves in this predicament because they underestimated Trump’s staying power. Except for the pathetically inept Jeb Bush, few establishment candidates attacked Trump in any aggressive, sustained way early in the race. Now we have Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz going after the front-runner with guns blazing. But it looks like a case of “too little too late.”

Democrats are salivating over the prospect of facing Trump in the general election. The thinking is their likely nominee, Hillary Clinton, will eat his lunch. Unlike Republican primary voters, Americans will come to their senses and elect the more experienced, and tested, Hillary.

Or will they?

Hillary’s negatives among all voters are just slightly below those of Trump. A large group of Democrats, mostly Progressives, have vowed to sit out the election or vote for Trump if Hillary becomes their party’s nominee. Trump voters are an enthusiastic bunch. They’ve had their fill of politics as usual. They want radical change even if that change borders on anarchy.

Hillary does not engender Trump’s passion among today’s anti-establishment voters. A low Democratic turnout due to a deficit of enthusiasm for their candidate could very well lead to a President Trump.

One-on-one match ups between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders favor Sanders in larger numbers than they do Hillary. Democratic enthusiasm, the kind that brings out voters, is squarely with the Sanders camp.

It’s ironic, the electability argument has nearly always favored Clinton over the democratic socialist Sanders. If Democrats get their wish of a Trump nomination, the electability meme may have to be revisited.

Photo | thetvpage.com

Of all the candidates from either party competing for the presidency, which two have the highest unfavorability ratings? You guessed it … at number one, Donald Trump; number two, Hillary Clinton.

In the latest 10 national polls measuring a candidate’s approval ratings, as compiled by Huffington Post, Donald Trump’s disapproval numbers range from 51% to 61%. Hillary Clinton does slightly better with unfavorability numbers from 50% to 58%.

Just for comparison purposes, Bernie Sanders’ unfavorability numbers clock in at 35% to 43%.

How is it possible that the candidates with the highest unfavorability numbers are each their party’s leading candidate to become their party’s presidential nominee? Do favorability/unfavorability numbers matter anymore? Or are they a thing of the past, just like about ever other bit of conventional wisdom that used to apply in politics?

For Democrats, it has gotten so bad that many Bernie Sanders supporters are flat out refusing to support Hillary if she is their party’s nominee. A good number of Progressives are even willing to support the slightly more hated Trump over Clinton.

We are truly swimming in uncharted waters this election cycle. Yes, it is still early in the game, with many more primaries to go until we get to the nominating conventions. But if all goes according to Hoyle, we will have the two most disliked presidential candidates competing against one another. In an ironic twist, the candidates’ negatives would put them on equal footing, as their unfavorability numbers would cancel each other out.

For the GOP establishment, that their leading candidate for its party’s presidential nomination has the highest unfavorability rating of any presidential candidate ever, can be forgiven. They are not backing him but trying to buck him.

For the Democrats, it’s the opposite. The party establishment has done just about all it could to insure the most hated Democratic candidate is their party’s nominee. (see Debbie Wasserman Schultz)

Followers of American politics around the world must be wondering, “is this the best Americans can do?” Is the American political system so broken that it needs a complete overhaul? Perhaps a revolution, as heralded by Sanders?

Photo | salon.com

Within minutes of Justice Antonin Scalia’s unexpected passing, Republicans implored the president to abdicate his constitutional duty to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” said Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell at a time when other political leaders were releasing statements offering condolences to the Justice’s family.

President Obama, in a demonstration of class and respect, offered praise for the conservative who, more than any other justice, had been a thorn in his side.

“He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court,” said Obama. “Justice Scalia dedicated his life to the cornerstone of our democracy: The rule of law. Tonight, we honor his extraordinary service to our nation and remember one of the towering legal figures of our time.”

But the President was having none of the advice coming from all corners of GOP land.

“Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy,” said Obama. “I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. There will be plenty of time for me to do so, and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”

The untimely death of Justice Scalia has put Republicans between a rock and far-right place. If they follow through on their promise to not even consider the President’s eventual nominee, they will show themselves to be the obstructionists they are and not as defenders of the Constitution. If they acquiesce, they will be seen as spineless by their “take no prisoners” base already angry with the Republican governing class.

Democrats have shown themselves to be a respectful bunch following the passing of Scalia. While the late Justice was perhaps the most loathed figure among liberals, they followed the president’s example by not exalting what many secretly believed to be a stroke of good luck.

No matter what the Republican Senate decides to do, the Democrats are in the catbird seat. All they need to do is have their nominee … whichever one it may be … elected president and the direction of the Supreme Court will be changed for decades … much like when Antonin Scalia was appointed to the Court by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.

Photo | mashable.com

You say you want a revolution, well you know. We all want to change the world -John Lennon

The choice for Democrats has come down to this: vote with your head or vote with your heart? Go with the visionary or go with the pragmatist? Demand a revolution or let evolution take it’s course.

Both Clinton and Sanders believe our political system is broken. Each candidate agrees fundamental change is needed. But where Bernie wants to take down the system, Hillary wants to improve it from the inside out. It’s the difference between one small step or a giant leap.

Voters on the right as well as the left consider Washington paralyzed and corrupt. They want big changes, and they want them now.

Clinton is asking the American voter, especially enthusiastic, young Sanders supporters, to grow up and get practical; to think about electability in swing states, not popularity on campus. She is trying to convince them that revolution isn’t in the cards, but that evolution is possible, and that she’s the candidate who can deliver it.

Sanders argues fundamental change can’t happen because of the power of special interests and the corrupt campaign finance system. He implies Clinton cannot change our corrupt system because she is part of the status quo; she is wedded to Wall Street and other special interests that have donated big money to her campaign and super PAC.

Just as there is a split between mainstream conservatives and far right conservatives in the Republican Party, a divide exists between Progressive and moderate Democrats.

Progressive Democrats agree with Hillary that electability needs to be considered but they believe Bernie is the more electable of the two. They point out Clinton’s high negative ratings among the electorate. Polls have shown Clinton to have unfavorability ratings, nationwide, close to 60%. Nobody wins a general election when close to 60 percent of Americans don’t trust the candidate.

At this point in the contest, the odds are still great that Hillary will be the Democratic presidential nominee. The only thing that could stop her is a new scandal.

It was reported recently the State Department inspector general issued a subpoena last fall targeting the Clinton Foundation and some of the charitable events hosted by the organization. The I.G. is looking into whether some of those events required the permission of the federal government. The investigation could expand beyond such a narrow focus. (Clinton Foundation scandal)

With the Clintons, you never know. As a Bernie supporter might say, “Oy vey!”

Photo | usatoday.com

Only in this year’s bizarro world of Republican presidential politics can a loss be celebrated as a win. First it was Marco Rubio’s third place finish in the Iowa caucus. Now it is Jeb Bush’s fourth place finish in the New Hampshire primary.

Bush donors and fundraisers were practically giddy with Jeb’s showing in New Hampshire, saying their man has finally found his footing in the chaotic contest otherwise known as the Republican presidential race.

The Republican contest now moves on to South Carolina, which holds its primary on February 20.

“He needed to be in the game, and last night, he was able to do so,” said Barry Wynn, a former South Carolina Republican chairman, now Bush fundraiser. In speaking of Donald Trump’s first place finish in New Hampshire, Wynn went on to say, “I don’t think (Trump) sells well in the south.” And even though Trump tops the polls in the Palmetto State, Wynn said, “You may find that South Carolina corrects some of the mistakes of New Hampshire.”

Much like Hillary Clinton views South Carolina as her firewall, which in her case means coming in first, Jeb is also looking to do well in next week’s primary. But what that actually means for the Bush camp is hard to say. Does Jeb need to win? Come in second or third?

Bush may be helped by the departure of Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina from the race. It is unlikely voters who had supported either candidate will now move to Trump. The odds are those supporters will back one of the establishment candidates.

Jeb has a strong organization in South Carolina, which backed his brother George W. in 2000. The former president is still well-liked in the Palmetto State. The Bush camp started airing a radio ad yesterday featuring George W., and Jeb is also relying on the support of the state’s U.S. senator, Lindsey Graham.

In this crazy Republican presidential race, the establishment may still get their man, Jeb, as their party’s nominee. Bush has the money; the organization; and the backing of his beloved brother to actually come in second or third behind Donald Trump in South Carolina … which in Republican-speak would be a resounding victory.

You never know. We might get a Clinton v. Bush contest after all.

Photo | telegraph.co.uk