Trump's the GOP nominee -- Now what?

By THOMAS HARTWELL

Let's talk about something very near and dear to my heart, or rather, my amygdalae -- the fear-conjuring portions of the human brain: A Trump nomination. Initially the thought of a Trump nomination gave me a sense of relief. "Well, if Trump is nominated, at least November will be triumphed by someone who, you know, isn't Trump." Now, though, I've begun to worry. Trump wasn't supposed to make it through the first couple months of a candidacy, and yet, here he is -- the GOP nominee. I've said "never" and been proven wrong in respect to Trump's campaign too many times to find any comfort in a statement that he could "never" win in November.

Not only has Trump now clinched the GOP nomination with more than the required 1,237 delegates bound to him, but several polls also show a narrowing margin between he and Hillary Clinton, a candidate who has only a slightly lower unfavorable rating than Mr. Trump. Amid an ongoing investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State and in a time of considerable public disdain and mistrust for the political establishment, Clinton's campaign seems to have more work cut out than previously thought.

Months ago, polls showed match ups in which Hillary Clinton won in landslide fashion over Donald Trump in November 2016, but those polls have recently been showing a spread within the margin of error and in some cases even with Trump edging Clinton out. "How could this possibly happen?!" I hear some of you out there shouting. Clinton supporters and Anti-Trumpsters alike neglected to take into account early on the effectiveness of Trump's personal attacks and empty promises on the masses. As expected, Trump has turned his attention solely to the presumptive Democratic nominee and begun a tirade based around a question of Clinton's character, coining a popular use for his campaign: "Crooked Hillary." There shouldn't be much surprise surrounding the narrowing of hypothetical match ups between the presumptive nominees. Polls conducted months before a general election and while other candidates remain in the race mean very little when taking into account all of the discoveries and events that could and would take place between then and an actual general election match up.

The best weapon that the Clinton campaign has left is a focus on her experience in politics and Trump's lack of experience. But even Clinton's experience in and around political office hasn't been able to save her from an unfavorable rating hovering anywhere between 50-60 percent -- she chose a bad time to be considered untrustworthy. Also, the Clinton campaign's earlier jabs at Trump's possible nomination -- "Really, folks? America's going to nominate Trump?" -- didn't resonate with anyone except the already Anti-Trump, and the "Trump's a joke" shtick can't, with any credibility, be used anymore.

Sanders is also causing the Clinton campaign some headache. While 66 percent of Sanders supporters say they would back Clinton if she were nominated, there have been reports of up to 20 percent of those "feeling the Bern" that would back Trump over Clinton. Clinton's supporters are also much more willing to support Bernie (88 percent) should he receive the nomination, prompting an even louder cry from many for a November Bernie bid (article here). But, sorry to all those out there feeling the Bern, the best possible thing that could happen to the Clinton campaign, and that could happen for the Never Trump movement, right now would be the suspension of Sanders' bid for the Democratic nomination paired with a Clinton endorsement from the Bern himself. Sanders should be careful not to alienate Clinton supporters if he really wants to defeat Trump and if he really is not going anywhere until the bitter end in July.

There have been calls for a third option, and I have to say, in a presidential campaign season that has already been filled with surprises, I think that hypothetical candidate could steal away quite a few votes, granted they distanced themselves enough from both candidates and still chose either a right or left lean.

Confirmation bias in the media: Show me, tell me

By THOMAS HARTWELL

We, as humans, believe that we are inherently correct and seek out information that agrees with our thinking. How does this apply to our daily thinking or our consumption of products, services, and news?

Confirmation bias, or the interpreting of evidence or information in regards to existing beliefs, has been addressed often in the discussion of the presentation of news. Most believe that there should be no biases in news reporting, and journalists are taught to stay completely objective in the presentation of hard news. While, in a perfect world, consumers of news could watch/read news presented completely objectively and make educated decisions based on what they read, we do not live in a perfect world. News organizations have to incorporate what sells into the presentation of their stories. There is also a consideration of gatekeepers who run the media organizations. While the goal should always be objective reporting, people have a tendency to have strong opinions on political issues, which many times manifest themselves in subtle biases in reporting.

When we explore confirmation bias in the larger media outlets, we often encounter a widely-accepted thought pattern: "CNN and MSNBC are liberal, Fox is conservative." While this is now considered the norm, the media outlets themselves would never come out and admit to it. The media outlets, therefore, must disguise their biases as "just another way of reporting."

Let's look at Fox and MSNBC's reporting of the same story. A racially insensitive joke was told at a charity dinner recently, and both outlets wrote a story on it. Keeping in mind that Fox is considered conservative and MSNBC liberal, there is a subtle difference in the reporting in a couple ways:

Image and story from foxnews.com

Image and story from msnbc.com

1. The headlines: In Fox's case, the headline reads that both Mayor De Blasio and Hillary Clinton take part in the joke and draw criticism. If we consider Fox's possible confirmation bias, it would make sense that they would want to frame Hillary in this way. Whereas, in MSNBC's case, only De Blasio takes part in the joke, and even then it's presented as "coming at a bad time" rather than being "racially-tinged."

2. The visuals: Fox shows Clinton and De Blasio laughing and seemingly celebrating with the headline "racially-tinged joke" hovering above. It seems to be framed as the two enjoying the insensitive comment. MSNBC instead shows Clinton off to the side looking on as the joke is made. This way, she seems to not take part in the joke making. Clinton also is even standing next to the African-American gentleman, further separating herself from the insensitivity.

Images, as we've already seen, can speak a thousand words in reporting, and often do. The images we see can impact our impression of the candidate depicted. For these examples, I'll choose a picture of Ted Cruz from CNN and one from Fox.

Image from cnn.com

Image from foxnews.com

In these cases, the presentation of Ted Cruz is considered in the photos chosen to be published on the sites. CNN's picture choice is less than flattering, while Fox's looks like a campaign flier.

While minds won't necessarily be changed by only images or word choice, the presentation of information or images can alter the way that people think about a subject. Objective news reporting and an educated public would be preferable to what is widely accepted as a biased news environment, but in order to inform the public, the public must want to be informed. If it takes subtle biases (even no-so-subtle ones) to inform them, then so be it -- I'll take the news with a grain of salt.

Republican party aims to trump Trump as candidate furthers his delegate lead

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The 2016 presidential campaign has been one that has, in many ways, strayed from the normal workings of U.S. elections, with the season’s rhetoric centered around the anger and distrust of a “corrupt Washington.” While both sides have seen revolutionary political strategies and several broken ballot records, the Republican party’s election has undeniably been the more colorful of the two, and Donald Trump has captured voters’ attention. The Republican race to the general election is narrowing, and the Trump campaign seems to be rallying the needed public support to face the Democrats in November.

“The Trump phenomenon – no one saw this coming. No one really understands why it’s happening – what’s going on – but I’ve got some ideas,” said political expert Kerwin Swint.

Swint is an author, speaker and professor of political science at Kennesaw State University. He has run campaigns, written books and his work has appeared in several national and international media outlets. Swint said that the “Trump phenomenon” as well as this campaign season’s obviously splintered GOP is something that has been in the cards for a while and has the potential to have lasting effects.

“What’s going on in the Republican party is a real revolution,” said Swint. “It is serious, it is dramatic, it is significant and it’s going to have long-term consequences.”

While there are plenty of voters out there who have voiced their discontent with Trump, more surprisingly, said Swint, is the amount of resistance Trump is receiving from the, so-called, establishment Republicans. The establishment fears that a Trump nomination means a Clinton victory, but it goes beyond that.

“The other part of their thinking … is, ‘Good Lord, he might win,’ which might be worse,” said Swint. “President Trump would pay no attention or very little attention to the establishment.”

Swint also said that a number of Republicans would rather see Clinton win the general election than Trump – a party line-crossing that has not been seen in decades.

Trump has appealed, most abundantly, to white, blue-collar workers who are tired of Washington and who are willing to cross party lines to vote an “outsider” into the Oval Office. His ability to pick up Independent votes has given him an edge in the delegate count, said Swint, but the damage that he and others have been doing to the GOP this season has forced some voters to display their unhappiness in other ways.

Zac Carr, a 25-year-old Cobb County voter said his primary vote was cast as a symbol of his own unhappiness with the candidates this campaign season.

“I voted for Rand Paul despite the fact that he is no longer running,” said Carr. “I asked for a non-partisan ballet because I, like George Washington, believe that the two-party system only polarizes our country. I wanted to do my part by showing that I believe non-partisan is preferred over Republican or Democrat.”

Carr said that the “nastiness” in the Republican race forced his hand and initiated his Independent vote.

Lott Middlemas, a Florida voter and international relations and Chinese double major at the University of South Carolina, agreed that the GOP race has been ugly, but said that its dirty tactics might be good for the number of voters in a general election.

“I think that voter turnout on both sides will increase noticeably for both parties as a result of the inflammatory politics of the Republican party during this election cycle,” said Middlemas. “The Republicans have been talking for years about expanding their base of support by appealing to minorities, but I don't think they'll see that as being necessary anymore since they've managed to draw out many more white voters than usual without having to soften their stances on economic and social issues that are often important to minority voters.”

The Democrats, said Middlemas, will turnout in larger numbers simply because of their fear of a Trump presidency and Clinton, he said, will beat Trump handily.

Not so fast, says Swint. A Clinton win isn’t such a sure-fire thing in a head-to-head.

“There are people assuming that Trump wouldn’t have a chance in a general election against Hillary Clinton. I’m not necessarily in agreement with that,” he said. “One of the strengths of Trump is that he’s put together a pretty broad coalition … It’s certainly not a slam dunk [for Clinton].”

It is his ability to appeal to groups of varying demographics and political opinion that potentially makes Trump dangerous, said Swint.

Yet another scenario in the Republican race is a nomination by a convention. Trump leads by about 100 delegates with 460, but he does have to get through a still very present Ted Cruz, and some wonder if the other Republican candidates may be able to pull enough delegates away from Trump to prevent his receiving a majority (1,237 delegates) and force the party to the convention. In this scenario, said Swint, the Republican leadership runs the risk, should they nominate someone other than Trump, of losing grip on their party.

“I think if they do take it away from [Trump] at the convention, I think he absolutely will run independent,” said Swint. “And I think at that point, he would be real interested in just wrecking the party for the Republicans.”

A non-Trump convention nominee would not only anger Republican voters, said Swint, but it would also cause “wheeling and dealing” between presidential candidates, state governments and others – precisely the kind of Washington antics voters are tired of.

According to Middlemas, though, Republican voters don’t need to worry about a convention.

“Super Tuesday cemented Donald Trump's supremacy in this race,” he said. “Sen. Cruz might be able to win a few more states, but Trump will certainly have a majority of delegates by the time the Republican national convention rolls around.”

Whether or not Trump has solidified his nomination remains to be seen, but polls with only Trump and Clinton’s name on them have begun to show up. Current CNN polls show either Democrat defeating Trump in November, but November is still miles down the road, said Swint.

“The general election [polls] right now are meaningless,” said Swint. “The election’s months and months away. We’re going to have coalitions, we’re going to have world events, we’re going to have economic developments that are going to affect that.”

All we can do now, said Swint, is wait and watch.

Who won the debate? Dem edition

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The Democratic debate on Feb. 11 was an exciting one. The decidedly less divided and less aggressive Democratic candidates agreed on most topics, but had very different rhetoric and solutions. Unlike in the year's Republican debates, a lack of outright shouting at each other and with only a couple candidates on stage, Hillary and Bernie had plenty of time to talk through the issues.

BERNIE
Bernie did well at the debate Thursday, opening with the issues he has highlighted as the most pressing domestically: Social and racial inequality, financial stability, healthcare for all and, of course, Wall Street speculation.

Sanders had a few well-liked quotes and strong statements that might be especially important since the next stop is South Carolina -- a state almost decided by the black vote. In discussion of police and community relations, a topic that has proved especially hot-button for many in light of the many unarmed black men killed by police lately, Bernie called for the "demilitarization of local police departments" as well as a diversification of those departments to ensure that they "look like the community they are serving." His focus on race inequality continued with an answer to his critics' one-issue candidate attack. The economy that he wants to create, he said, "which is already paid for" by his "tax Wall Street speculation" is for those who are less fortunate financially, which is why he continues and will continue to address it. It would "keep children off of street corners." His strongest racial inequality statement, though, came when he compared the amount of white versus black people who have been jailed for marijuana use. The use between the races is almost equal, he said, but the incarceration rate is 4 times higher for blacks. He was smart to include this statement going into a very important primary.

Sanders also came out strong on immigration. He received roaring audience support after saying that the U.S. people must "stand up to the Trumps of the world who are trying to divide us up." Sanders supported Obama's use of executive orders on the issue, but said he would go even further -- a statement that also received roaring support. (It was at this point that I think Hillary tried to grab a little of that support by throwing in a little "me too"-type statement). A path to citizenship, said Bernie, is essential to bringing families and citizens together, not dividing them up.

Bernie didn't impress on foreign policy, again. He doesn't seem incredibly bothered by the critics on this issue, though. He allowed that Russia and Syria should be taken seriously, but sort of pushed them to the side saying, for example, that the U.S. should try to make nice with Putin, but not let him "get away" with anything. Also, his stage presence still is not that of Hillary Clinton who, for example, has experience debating on these kinds of fronts. A strong and impassioned overall performance, but a performance poked full of holes by Clinton. 8/10.

HILLARY
Hillary struck a few blows to Bernie's campaign efforts and debate performances, trying to shake the foundation on which he has built his rapidly growing campaign. She spoke first about the numbers not adding up in reference to Bernie's economic, education and healthcare plans. While she agreed with several of the ideas, she accused Bernie of having little foresight experience enough to speak with any ethos on the subject. Clinton gave the audience a call to action on the two varying economic plans: "Vet both of our proposals."

Hillary's proposals seemed more prepared and actionable than Bernie's, and she certainly got into the nitty-gritty of those topics, which did well for her. Both Sanders and Clinton put a price tag on a couple of their ideas (both $100 billion), but Clinton challenged Sanders on the gathering of his proposed funds. Sanders' ideas pivot of governors making monetary commitments that he suggests, and "I'm not convinced" that would happen, said Clinton.

Where Bernie lacked, Clinton was strong as well -- foreign policy. Hillary's ability to expand from years of experience as well as her own interest particularly in foreign policy allowed for an expansion beyond what Sanders could offer. She spoke eloquently on domestic terrorism, ISIS, online defense and local, state and federal law enforcement. There were times, however, that debate viewers' eyes may have glazed over. It's important in a debate to back up claims, but going too far into detail or focusing on one topic for too long has the potential to lose attention from viewers. Clinton's expansion also may have been taken as "show-offy" at times.

I think where Hillary lacked was in her attempts to cast off doubts of trust in her. The 'Yeah, I have Super PACs, but the majority of my donors are small' message she brought prompted my answer: "The majority are small donors, because 2 people gave you millions." She also seemed to repeat words that had come out of Sander's mouth seconds before -- a tactic that seemed acceptable to audience members, but didn't get past me. Stronger policy speech paired with a more confident stage presence won Hillary this debate. 9/10.

Primary predictions: The Iowa effect and the race to come

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The Iowa caucuses shattered overall attendance records, brought record numbers of first-time caucus-goers and surprised even the most seasoned political analysts and reporters. Trump, contrary to what entrance polls predicted, fell first-loser to Ted Cruz, who finished up 3.3 percent and one delegate on Trump, according to the Associated Press. Followers and critics of both the Trump and Cruz campaigns could see what a large difference there was in the ground games -- something that is critically important to an Iowa caucus win. So Cruz's ground game pulled it out for him, and this win will be critical to Cruz's success in future primaries. Now that voters, especially the undecideds, see that Cruz actually can win a nomination, we could see a shift in attitudes to his advantage.

Oh, and by the way, Trump's second-place finish prompted many -- including myself -- to reference an old tweet of his:

Anyway...

The Cruz win was not the most surprising happening at the caucuses. Sen. Marco Rubio, following a strong debate performance, came in a strong third place, trailing Trump by only 1.2 percent of the vote.

What does this all mean for the upcoming primaries, though? Well, I'll tell you.

A win for any Republican candidate at this stage means plenty of media attention and maybe some spotlight taken off Trump, which is good for all of us. Following the January 28 debate and directly after the Iowa caucuses, though, I thought I knew what was to come in the next primaries. But since then, a not-so-great debate performance by Rubio and continued ridicule for the "voter violation scandal" and the "stealing of Ben Carson's votes" for Cruz have changed my projections. Here they are (for three states):

Trump takes New Hampshire, Cruz takes South Carolina (BARELY) and Rubio takes Nevada.

As far as the Democrats, where do I begin? The caucuses left viewers at the edge of their seats until the early morning hours, until finally Clinton claimed a 0.3 percent win over Sanders.

Clinton, I predict will remain about the same in popularity for the rest of the campaign season -- she has a pretty dedicated following. I will say, though, those who are undecided, I thoroughly expect to start siding with "The Bern." New Hampshire is absolutely going to be Bernie's time, but look out for him in the later states also.