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.