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.

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.

The New Hampshire effect

From New Hampshire public radio

By THOMAS HARTWELL

More records were broken Tuesday when the presidential candidates made their way to New Hampshire. While the Democrat's voter record was not broken, they contributed to the overall high voter turnout of 538,094, edging out the 2008 total voter turnout by around 11,000 ballots cast. The Republican voter turnout shattered previous records; 284, 120 voters cast ballots -- an increase of nearly 12,000 on the Republican side alone over the previous record-setting election (248,475).

There were a number of surprises in New Hampshire. Most shocking to me was Kasich's taking second place and receiving almost 16 percent of the Republican vote. Kasich came off of a debate performance where he looked more comfortable than previously and, apparently, where he impressed potential voters. I was surprised to see this large of a jump in his numbers, even while refusing to use negative ads against the other candidates -- a tactic which has proven very successful in New Hampshire in the past. Kasich needed this revitalization to his campaign after a not-so-strong debate performance on January 28 and a sheer beat down in the Iowa caucuses.

The amount of votes that Trump received was staggering to me, too. I knew going in that he was likely to win New Hampshire, as up to 34 percent of New Hampshire voters register as Independent and are, therefore, more likely to vote away from the "politician choices." What I was not prepared for was Trump's capturing of more than a third of New Hampshire (35 percent). Trump received 10 delegates to the next nearest candidate's four, so it was quite a victory for him... *sigh*

More surprises: Rubio dropped into fifth place, below Bush, who previously received only 3 percent of the vote in Iowa. Bush, like Kasich, desperately needed this attention from voters, but unlike Kasich, has remained extremely positive about his campaign -- easy to do when you have the amount of financial support he does, I guess. Rubio hasn't been doing so hot lately. He's been called "robotic" and "too rehearsed" after, in a couple cases, he has repeated almost exactly the same words several times in speeches. Rubio said it himself, he didn't do well when it mattered leading up to New Hampshire. Cruz did well to fly under the radar and focus his energy on South Carolina, amid some accusations of illegal campaign activity, taking third. I expect him to win there, as he has captured the evangelical vote for the most part. Christie and Fiorina did not receive enough support to justify continuing their campaigns, and as expected suspended them in the following days. If Carson has another performance like that of the 2 percent he earned in New Hampshire, he could be next.

In short, the Republicans' race could turn into a 2-person one. If Cruz does as well as many expect in South Carolina, he and the Trumpster could simply be too far out in front to catch.

As far as the Democratic vote goes... well, what'd I tell you? Bernie received a whopping 60 percent of the vote to Hillary's 38. This is due, mostly, to the state's large number of Independents (Bernie is registered Independent as a Vermont senator). Bernie received 15 delegates to Hillary's 9, but the two are tied going forward, as six out of eight of the "super delegates" have declared for Clinton. I expect that, in South Carolina, Sanders will not be able to overcome the large discrepancy in the African-American vote and will lose, potentially big, to Clinton.

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.