This post is to talk about the issue of Electability. This is a topic that is thrown around a lot with this current election. The reason it seems more of an emphasis is probably due to the 2 candidates that are coming from outside the establishment. They have not allowed the standard politics to influence their campaign. I am sure you can guess who those individuals are. Trump and Sanders. I have made it known my opinions on who I support. There was a nagging issue within myself though about this idea of Electability. Hannah and I even had a discussion months ago about this problem. Could he actually convince other people to vote for him? Well if polls mean anything, then we have an answer. I have some the results of the different matchups between both Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton against all the GOP candidates.
First I will start that I once was very hesitant about the increase to the minimum wage. A year ago I would have given you the same answer the Right has and will continue to say. Higher minimum wages result in raise in goods cost and has potential to lower jobs counts. This is a frightening prospect and seems like we will never get ahead if those things were to happen. Though after further thought and investigation I have come to a whole different conclusion.
To have a better understanding of where I got to, I point to the basic understanding of the economy. That word we hear thrown about, especially the Right wing as they claim we are “in decline” because of Obama (lies by the way)… A good definition follows.
ECONOMY: the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or region (Merriam-Webster.com)
The debate was a much calmer and controlled one compared to the most recent ones. Both candidates did not go to their standard “yelling” voices. Hilary has found a way this election to look almost 20 years younger and last night was no difference. She has a strong confidence about her, and it resonated all night. She also had a strong group of supporters in the audience. To my surprise it would seem her group was larger than Bernie’s. At this point most of the issues have been laid out. Most of the differences have been made. The question now is just who will be more believable. Who will resonate with people more. Do we settle on incremental changes, and not change how politics is done. Or do we shoot for the stars, and even if we fall short, know that the effort was there and that there will be a significant change to how politics happens, putting Democracy back as how we do business.
Tuesday night was another pivotal moment for this fall’s Presidential election. It starts the push towards who the real candidates are. Iowa was a start, and when it comes to Democratic side not a bad look at how the nation may approach the nominee selection. For the GOP side though, it is another story. With the high level of Evangelical super right-wing conservatism within the Republican base in Iowa, you can see how history shows the winner of Iowa almost always loses the primary for the GOP nominee. Tuesday though really started what may be a very drawn out race. The big questions going into the night were as follows. Will Bernie keep some momentum from the tie and show his muscles in a state he already had a lead in? Will Donald Trump make a comeback and finally learn something about a “ground game?”
The answers are in the results. Both Bernie and Trump were the favorites going in. There is no surprise to anyone that they did actually win. It is in the way they won that is significant.
This was the first debate that was done as an 1 on 1 debate. Martin O'Malley did drop from the race during the Iowa caucus due to the low result there. This means the debate was one like nothing we have seen yet from this campaign year. Both Bernie and Hillary knew they wanted to make a statement with this debate. The result was quite a heated and intense debate for the first hour of it. The second hour did result into some more fluff topics and in my opinion issues that were not important and wasted the time of the audience. Examples, Hillary's "email scandal" and the idea Bernie "mislead the public" with an ad about an endorsement. Hillary's email issue has the possibility of being a real issue, but to this point it is a non issue because we are not aware that anything unlawful took place. On the Bernie issue, it seems the whole question was to attack him about an ad that had a file name of "endorsement" when sent to the TV company, about statements from a newspaper. NEVER in the ad did they mention that the newspaper gave an "official endorsement." Again nothing worth mentioning.
Let’s look at the last 6 months and investigate how the DNC and Media has been approaching Bernie Sanders. At the beginning he was little threat to the front runner Hillary. This meant little to no press coverage of anyone else from the Democratic side. This is not all that shocking when looking at those original numbers showing no one had a chance. Slowly though, Bernie Sanders has built steam for his candidacy. So high in fact, that he did just tie Hillary in Iowa. He did all of this without getting the coverage that Hillary gets. It at one point late last year was as high as 14 times more coverage of Hillary over Bernie. This is a tremendous amount of time that is spent on the person who already has 20+ years of name recognition. She needs none of that media time to be the favorite from the party. Even with Bernie rising in the polls they don’t acknowledge him to any real extent on cable media coverage.
Monday night brought an exciting night. On the Democrats side we saw a dead heat tie between Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton. It was a crazy and eventful charge from the back by Bernie to bring the final down to around 0.2% or 0.3% difference. Smaller than a standard deviation of error. This means that just a few miss counts of just a few people may have actually shifted the state for Bernie. This is somewhat disheartening. This was a state, in my opinion, a state Bernie kind of needed to build more momentum. But this is no doubt a decent start, but more work will need to be done.
Last week Trump decided to skip the debate done by Fox as a rebellion against the "attacks" he received from Megyn Kelly. This is my interpretation of the reasoning, and the outcome from that "demonstration."
First lets look as to why Trump would want to skip this debate right before Iowa votes towards the GOP candidates. I believe he did feel threatened and attacked the last time Megyn asked him questions. She asked him a question in one of the first debates about his previous words against women. She asked a legitimate question, asking about why he believes women should vote for him.