Clinton Wins Over Manufacturers, the South, Minorities... Basically Everyone.

In The Guardian, "Bernie Sanders: Clinton 'creamed us' in south but west coast will be better" looks at Bernie Sanders' loses in the South against Hillary Clinton. Alan Yuhas reports that Sanders is placing his hopes in the West Coast, which he claims is the most progressive part of America, and that he will only improve moving forward in the elections. Sanders reiterates the argument that Clinton is part of "establishment politics," and that voters are looking for real change. He frowns upon Clinton's recent adoption of positions he has been advocating for for over twenty years. He also denounces her affiliation with super PACs, and Wall Street, as per usual. When asked about whether he was trying to get superdelegates from Clinton, he avoids the question by saying that the whole concept of superdelegates is problematic. He also believes that he is in the best position to beat Donald Trump. I'm really intrigued by the idea that he is the best candidate to beat Trump, because I have seen him win against Trump in polling, beating out Hillary by a large number, but I don't really understand why. I think Sanders is hopeful, but while I think he is right about the West Coast's progressiveness, I don't think he really has much of a chance at winning. While I really liked Sanders a few months ago, and I really like his politics, the more I see of him, the more he leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I don't really know why. My politics haven't changed, and they still lie with him for the most part, but he is slowly driving me more towards Clinton. I'm curious to know if more of his old supporters feel similarly.

My second article, from the New Yorker, is titled "Did Violence At the Trump Rally Help Clinton?" looks at the violence at the Trump rallies in Chicago. John Cassidy talks about how some people believe that the "Trump Scare" encouraged voters to vote for Clinton because they believe that reliable and mainstream is the best way to beat Trump. However, exit polling in some states contests this idea, where last minute decision voters generally chose Sanders in the end instead of Hillary. It's possible that, had there not been violence, the last minute voter data would have been overwhelmingly in Sanders' favor, but this isn't really enough evidence to truly accept the "Trump Scare" theory. In all five states Hillary won - Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio - she won over the minorities by huge margins. She also managed to narrow the gap when it came to white men, with Sanders only winning by three percentage points. And, despite the article last week, she won over voters who believe that international trade costs the U.S. jobs. Looking at the article last week, that showed Clinton looking bad after talking about coal in Ohio, I think this is really interesting and probably bodes well for her. If she can narrow gaps to this extent that Bernie was really relying on, I think she's looking really good for winning the nomination. I think the perspective on violence at the Trump rallies doesn't actually have an influence on Hillary. I think it's an interesting idea, but also a bit of a stretch.

Hillary and Huma

The first article I read this week is by Jacquelyn Martin, titled "Is Huma Abedin Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon or Her Next Big Problem?" from Vanity Fair. It looked at Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's aide, and whether or not her role in the White House during the Clinton era poses a problem to Hillary's current campaign. It has been said that Abedin is as close to Hillary as a shadow, and that she is like a second daughter or a sister. Abedin is married to Anthony Weiner, a former congressman embroiled in a 2011 scandal regarding explicit texts. Scandals like this are old hat for the Clinton family, and much like Hillary, Huma stayed married to Anthony Weiner. Her family has also had rumored ties to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and Michelle Bachman wrote a letter to the State Department citing Abedin as someone with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood who had infiltrated the government, although John McCain took to the Senate floor to denounce these claims. Abedin also received financial aid from the Clintons after the scandal involving her husband broke, and there are other questions about her money and salary: is her status as a special government employee (S.G.E.) blurring the line between the public and private sector? Did she submit inaccurate hours for time she didn't actually work? There are concerns that allegations of conflicts of interest and misrepresentation for someone so close to Clinton will become a liability for her looking forward in her campaign. People already attack Clinton for being anti-woman or something silly after staying with Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky Scandal, and people will only start digging deeper for dirt as Hillary is more likely to win the Democratic primary, and then the general election if she is up against Trump. Personally, I'm fascinated by Huma Abedin, and I can't wait to see how this plays out.

The second article is from the New York Times, titled "2 Front Runners, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Find Their Words Can Be Weapons." In this article, Amy Chozick and Alan Rappeport give an overview of the week in politics. Clinton struggled to connect with white, working-class voters in Cleveland after some accidentally disparaging remarks about the coal industry. She has been focused on Cleveland, because of the majority black and democratic population could sway the vote. Unlike Bernie Sanders, she has been successful among African American voters. Sanders claims that he has been focusing on "blue-collar, older male voters" impacted by trade deals. There is concern that Clinton supporters will vote for Kasich in the Ohio elections simply to vote against Trump. Most Clinton supporters, however, are resigned to Trump becoming the Republican candidate. I think the idea that Ohio democrats would entertain the idea of voting for Kasich is interesting, because I was under the impression that they really disliked him. I think this article is also very interesting because it's coming at this from a very biased, anti-Trump angle and, from what I can read into it, very pro-Hillary. From what I can see, this is only further proof that the nominees will boil down to Hillary and Trump.

Is Hillary a Winner? Hill Yeah!

     To kick off this blog, the first article I'm looking at is titled "Hillary Clinton's Got This"  by Harry Enten from March 2, 2016. It was first published on FiveThirtyEight, a reputable website that focuses on opinion poll analysis. It looks at the results of Super Tuesday - Hillary winning seven states to Bernie Sanders' four - and Enten argues that the only way Sanders can win the whole thing is through a fundamental shift in the race. This is unlikely to happen, with the election already down to just Clinton and Sanders, unlike the republican race. Enten also looks at the disparity between the number of people of color voting for the two candidates, with Hillary bringing in more votes from African-American and Hispanic voters, whereas Bernie only one in predominantly white states.

     The issues that are being addressed here are the results of Super Tuesday and predictions for an overall winner. Hillary is being slated as a clear winner, and with that in mind, it could influence the election in terms of Bernie dropping out, but that has already been shown to be unlikely (he's not going without a fight). I didn't learn much new information, but I was shocked to see Hillary winning by such huge margins with black and Hispanic voters, because knowing Bernie's history, I would have expected some degree of support for him, even if it wasn't overwhelming. I can't use this information directly because it's not about policy, just statistical analysis, but if I were working on Bernie's campaign, I would take this into consideration. While it's possible that people just aren't voting for him for inherent reasons (read: white man) he still needs to look at changing his tactics were minorities are involved. 

     My second article is from the New York Times, titled "Who Won the Debate? Hillary Clinton is Given the Edge." It was published March 7, 2016 by Alan Rappeport. The article looks at the Sunday night Democratic debate, and Rappeport comes to the conclusion that Hillary won. The debate itself was not campaign altering, but Bernie got a little too heated and stumbled several times whereas Hillary managed to stay on track all night. One thing was agreed, the democrats looked far better than their counterparts, who discussed important national issues like hand size at the last Republican debate. The article ends with quotes from a variety of news publications with varying ideas about the candidates and the debate.

     The problem being addressed is the winner of the most recent debate, and the conclusion is that i was Hillary Clinton. She has consistently set the bar high in debates, so I don't know how much it will really be a game changer in the election, I think very little will be at this point on the democrat's side, this question is more appropriate for the republicans. I didn't learn much from the article, I wish it had gone more in-depth about the debate, which I missed most of. It didn't focus much on the reasoning behind Hillary's good performance, other than mentioning minor flaws for Bernie (who, to be fair, I did hear horrible reviews of on Sunday night). I think Mr. Sanders could use this information, because I think he does need to realize at some point that the finger waving and some interruptions is not going to win him any points.

Until next week,

Maddie