The exceedingly strange election season of 2016 has left me uncharacteristically speechless. Not to worry, I haven’t disappeared. Simply keeping a low profile on the blogosphere until the unpleasantness is over.
Early voting starts today in Maryland, and I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton tomorrow.
Maybe 2016 will fade quickly like a bad dream. Maybe the storm will pass and American politics will regain some sanity and civility. We can only hope.
Let’s try to apply a little historical perspective to the 2016 election.
When Nelson Rockefeller, governor of New York, ran for the Republican nomination in 1964, his divorce and remarriage were considered to be disqualifying, in the eyes of many voters, especially Republican women.
Today, the presumptive Republican nominee for the highest office in the land is . . . Donald Trump? How many times has he been divorced? I forget. It doesn’t matter.
How America has changed in half a century! We were an intolerant society with overly rigid standards. We’ve become a society with no standards at all. We tolerate anything.
For Donald Trump, the charismatic chameleon, no standards apply. Nothing is too crude or too reckless. There are no limits to what the crowds will cheer for.
I wonder, what would President Eisenhower think of Donald Trump as commander-in-chief?
Why does the mainstream media report over and over that Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be the Democratic nominee?
The presumption of a Hillary Clinton nomination is based on a dwindling lead of fewer than 300 pledged delegates, with 18 states yet to vote.
Hillary’s lead is based entirely on Democratic primary victories in the former Confederate states of the Deep South, from South Carolina to Texas. Is the Democratic nominee going to win any of the Deep South states in November? Highly unlikely. We are conceding the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton based a handful of Southern states? Continue reading →
It was a mild day for February in Minnesota yesterday. The sun was out and the birds were already doing their territorial and mating songs. After skimming the news for the day, I needed a walk. My mood was dark, as it usually is after taking in the shootings, the bloviating politicians, the wars and violations of human rights around the globe. As someone prone to depression, I have to fight the sense of desolation.
An alarm often goes off in my brain. Do something! Do something! I have that mentality of trying to fix, mediate, improve, or intervene, which leaves me a paralyzed, impotent ball of anger in the face of overwhelming and constant bad news. I thought about writing letters to Congress, refusing to buy certain products, running for local office, donating money to this cause or that. Bandages for my ego and drops in a bucket.
It is true that Bernie would have a hill to climb to persuade 51 percent of American voters to support him. But wait! Every presidential candidate must climb that hill. Would it be more, or less, difficult for Donald Trump to achieve 51 percent support in the General Election? How about Ted Cruz?
In Sanders vs. Trump OR Sanders vs. Cruz, both the Democratic and Republican nominees would be unconventional candidates. Maybe even strange candidates. In a normal election year, none of the three would stand a snowball’s chance of winning a major-party nomination.
The scenario is, we have a strange, unprecedented election in front of us. Totally unpredictable. But we can take a look at a number of obvious political factors. Continue reading →
“I have been in Iowa for nine months now, and everywhere I go I see signs that Bernie is going to win. I see Bernie buttons on cashiers in checkout lines, and anytime I have Bernie gear on people compliment it.
When I cover various political events, a lot of the crowd is usually undecided or checking out the candidate. Not at Bernie events, where the crowds are excited and committed to the Bern.”
Reported by a clearly biased observer in Iowa. His view tends to support news reported in the MSM. From a post by Scott Galindez. Read his full post here.