The 2016 field is crowded. Most people are ignoring it, and understandably as it is not even the year of the election!
However, I am paying a lot of attention. I have already set my sites on an unlikely contender, Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont, who was the longest serving Independent in congressional history until this year when he became a Democrat.
Bernie Sanders is the best candidate. So why him? Why not any other candidates? Why does it even matter whom I support if I can't even vote?
I am going to be part of the future workforce. I will have to work and make money in the future America. Whoever gets elected in 2016 will directly have an impact on my career when I join the workforce.
Bernie Sanders fights for that. He fights for a higher minimum wage. He fights for less income inequality. He wants healthcare for all and once the hardworking workers retire, he wants them to be able to sustain themselves with Social Security.
Its not just about me, either. He wants our prison systems to focus on rehabilitation, not punishment - a point which I heavily agree with. This is just beginning to scratch the surface off his ideas.
I want to live in a world as an adult better off than previous generations that come before me. Which is why I am supporting Bernie Sanders for President in 2016.
Monday, December 21, 2015
Sunday, November 29, 2015
How to Run for Congress
Election season is rolling by. For some people disgruntled by our current political system, this may be the time of year when they decide to quit their job and run for office.
Therefore, I am creating a step to step guide on how to run for Congress.
1. Meet the Requirements
If you are running for the House of Representatives, you must be 25 years old and a citizen for 7 years. If you are running for the Senate, you must be 30 years old and a citizen for 9 years. For both of them, you have to live in the state you are running for office in.
2. File your Forms
You must fill out 2 FEC Forms to run for Congress. FEC Form 1 is for committees, while FEC Form 2 is for candidates. You must fill out FEC Form 1 for your campaign committee, while you must fill out FEC Form 2 for your declaration of candidacy. Certain states have deadlines to get your forms through, so research that in the website on Step 3.
FEC Form 1 PDF - http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm1.pdf
FEC Form 1 Webform - https://webforms.fec.gov/webforms/form1/index.htm
FEC Form 2 PDF - http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2.pdf
FEC Form 2 Webform - https://webforms.fec.gov/webforms/form2/index.htm
3. Get your Signatures
In order to actually get on the ballot, you need to get signatures. The website below has all the details about the requirements per state to get on the ballot. The second website shows the filing deadlines for signatures and forms per state.
https://ballotpedia.org/Signature_requirements_and_deadlines_for_2014_U.S._Congress_elections
https://ballotpedia.org/Signature_requirements_and_deadlines_for_2016_U.S._Congress_elections
4. Start a Website
There are many websites dedicated to giving candidates a way to get their own campaign websites. Websites provide more info as well as create a good way to raise money. This website below is one of many to give campaign websites to candidates.
https://www.campaignpartner.com
5. Raise Money!
Through your campaign website, email supporters and raise money! You can attach donation receiving places on your site in multiple ways. For Democratic Candidates, the best way is ActBlue. For everybody else and Democrat candidates, you can use PayPal or other services to receive money. Create a separate account just for your campaign, so you can successfully report on your campaign finances.
6. Spread the Word
Using social media and word of mouth, try to get your message through. You should also advertise as much as you can without using up all of your money.
7. Vote!
There is no way to win unless you vote and get others to also vote. Register to vote and then vote on primary days. If you win the primaries, make sure to rally your supporters to vote for you on Election Day.
Note: This isn't a complete guide. These are merely the basics. If you are serious about running for office, do a bit more research, but use this as a starting base.
Therefore, I am creating a step to step guide on how to run for Congress.
1. Meet the Requirements
If you are running for the House of Representatives, you must be 25 years old and a citizen for 7 years. If you are running for the Senate, you must be 30 years old and a citizen for 9 years. For both of them, you have to live in the state you are running for office in.
2. File your Forms
You must fill out 2 FEC Forms to run for Congress. FEC Form 1 is for committees, while FEC Form 2 is for candidates. You must fill out FEC Form 1 for your campaign committee, while you must fill out FEC Form 2 for your declaration of candidacy. Certain states have deadlines to get your forms through, so research that in the website on Step 3.
FEC Form 1 PDF - http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm1.pdf
FEC Form 1 Webform - https://webforms.fec.gov/webforms/form1/index.htm
FEC Form 2 PDF - http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2.pdf
FEC Form 2 Webform - https://webforms.fec.gov/webforms/form2/index.htm
3. Get your Signatures
In order to actually get on the ballot, you need to get signatures. The website below has all the details about the requirements per state to get on the ballot. The second website shows the filing deadlines for signatures and forms per state.
https://ballotpedia.org/Signature_requirements_and_deadlines_for_2014_U.S._Congress_elections
https://ballotpedia.org/Signature_requirements_and_deadlines_for_2016_U.S._Congress_elections
4. Start a Website
There are many websites dedicated to giving candidates a way to get their own campaign websites. Websites provide more info as well as create a good way to raise money. This website below is one of many to give campaign websites to candidates.
https://www.campaignpartner.com
5. Raise Money!
Through your campaign website, email supporters and raise money! You can attach donation receiving places on your site in multiple ways. For Democratic Candidates, the best way is ActBlue. For everybody else and Democrat candidates, you can use PayPal or other services to receive money. Create a separate account just for your campaign, so you can successfully report on your campaign finances.
6. Spread the Word
Using social media and word of mouth, try to get your message through. You should also advertise as much as you can without using up all of your money.
7. Vote!
There is no way to win unless you vote and get others to also vote. Register to vote and then vote on primary days. If you win the primaries, make sure to rally your supporters to vote for you on Election Day.
Note: This isn't a complete guide. These are merely the basics. If you are serious about running for office, do a bit more research, but use this as a starting base.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Liberal Revolution?
A couple of weeks ago, the Canadian General Election was held. Before the election, the Conservatives were in power, like they had been since 2006. If Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had won the election, they would've had a good chance of being the longest consecutive majority in the Canadian parliament. Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister for 9 years, had he won, he could've beaten Sir Wilfrid Laurier for longest consecutive tenure as Prime Minister of Canada (he had 15 years as Prime Minister).
However, none of that happened. Justin Trudeau, a 43 year old former schoolteacher and son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and the Liberal Party crushed the Conservatives and New Democratic Party. At the start of the election, the Conservatives held 159 seats in Parliament, the New Democrats held 95 seats in Parliament, and the Liberals held 36 seats in Parliament. After the election, the Liberals held 184 seats in Parliament, the Conservatives held 99 seats in Parliament, and the New Democrats held 44 seats in Parliament.
This wasn't a random occurrence. A major shift to the left in the West has been evident. Over the summer, the Labour Party elected a socialist, Jeremy Corbyn, as its new leader. In America, Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, and the progressive wing of the Democratic party have launched an insurgent campaign that is catching up to the once favorite Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Of course, one could argue, other parts of Europe are going to the right. After Poland's most recent election, there is no left wing party with seats in parliament. In America also, the Republican Party has been lurching further and further to the right in recent times, even leading to the resignation of the Speaker of the House John Boehner.
However, new polling shows that the Democrats have a good chance of retaking the Senate and have a better chance than before, although still slim, to take back the House also. The Presidency still remains up for grabs, due to ongoing crowded campaigns.
While some countries are going to the right, the West seems to be pivoting towards the left. Socialist is no longer a dirty word, and people are starting to learn that the word socialist and the word communist aren't synonyms.
All the evidence is pointing towards a Liberal Revolution.
However, none of that happened. Justin Trudeau, a 43 year old former schoolteacher and son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and the Liberal Party crushed the Conservatives and New Democratic Party. At the start of the election, the Conservatives held 159 seats in Parliament, the New Democrats held 95 seats in Parliament, and the Liberals held 36 seats in Parliament. After the election, the Liberals held 184 seats in Parliament, the Conservatives held 99 seats in Parliament, and the New Democrats held 44 seats in Parliament.
This wasn't a random occurrence. A major shift to the left in the West has been evident. Over the summer, the Labour Party elected a socialist, Jeremy Corbyn, as its new leader. In America, Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, and the progressive wing of the Democratic party have launched an insurgent campaign that is catching up to the once favorite Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Of course, one could argue, other parts of Europe are going to the right. After Poland's most recent election, there is no left wing party with seats in parliament. In America also, the Republican Party has been lurching further and further to the right in recent times, even leading to the resignation of the Speaker of the House John Boehner.
However, new polling shows that the Democrats have a good chance of retaking the Senate and have a better chance than before, although still slim, to take back the House also. The Presidency still remains up for grabs, due to ongoing crowded campaigns.
While some countries are going to the right, the West seems to be pivoting towards the left. Socialist is no longer a dirty word, and people are starting to learn that the word socialist and the word communist aren't synonyms.
All the evidence is pointing towards a Liberal Revolution.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Let Lessig Run
This past week was filled with huge changes in the Democratic field. Former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia announced he was dropping out of the Democratic race and was exploring a possible run as an Independent candidate. Then, in one of the biggest moments of the election so far, Vice President Joe Biden announced he was not running for President. Then, former Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island dropped out of the Democratic race.
There were 5 candidates at the 1st Democratic Debate with the possibility of Biden entering the race. The next debate will have 3 candidates without a possibility of Biden entering the race. However, there should be 4 candidates.
After Labor Day weekend, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig announced he was running for President. Lessig is famous for his talks of public financing of elections and has made a couple of TED Talks addressing the topic. He also pledged to be the first single-issue President, saying that if elected, he would address campaign finance reform and gerrymandering reform and would then resign from the Presidency and give his Vice President a chance to become President.
However, Lawrence Lessig hasn't been included in any major Democratic polls and was excluded from the CNN Democratic Debate.
The next debate should give Lawrence Lessig a chance to actually run for President by including him in the debate and giving him exposure in front of an audience of millions of voters.
Lawrence Lessig wants to run for President. Give him a chance to run.
There were 5 candidates at the 1st Democratic Debate with the possibility of Biden entering the race. The next debate will have 3 candidates without a possibility of Biden entering the race. However, there should be 4 candidates.
After Labor Day weekend, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig announced he was running for President. Lessig is famous for his talks of public financing of elections and has made a couple of TED Talks addressing the topic. He also pledged to be the first single-issue President, saying that if elected, he would address campaign finance reform and gerrymandering reform and would then resign from the Presidency and give his Vice President a chance to become President.
However, Lawrence Lessig hasn't been included in any major Democratic polls and was excluded from the CNN Democratic Debate.
The next debate should give Lawrence Lessig a chance to actually run for President by including him in the debate and giving him exposure in front of an audience of millions of voters.
Lawrence Lessig wants to run for President. Give him a chance to run.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
We Need Common Core
One of the main views - at least from an educational standpoint - that is prominent among most of the GOP field and even amongst a lot of Democrats is that Common Core is bad.
One of the lead arguments is that its making the government too big by creating standards for every single school. Instead, people argue, these decisions should be made at the local level.
Another prominent argument is that Common Core is being treated as a one size fits all solution - students have different needs in education and are at different levels.
I agree with the second argument. Children are very different and there is not any one size fits all remedy for education.
However, Common Core is not that. Common Core is just the minimum standards that each kid has to learn. In order to achieve that goal, students can request help from teachers if they need it. If students feel they already know the core standards, then their can be a higher level class that expands more on the things they learned.
Common Core is just a goal that each student should meet. If they need help, they should receive it from the teacher, and then they can meet the goal. If they feel they already know the content, they can go into higher classes and go more into depth about each topic.
This isn't about making the government too big or not focusing on the students. This is about raising the bar and helping students accomplish their goals to become more educated and therefore have a better chance at succeeding in life.
One of the lead arguments is that its making the government too big by creating standards for every single school. Instead, people argue, these decisions should be made at the local level.
Another prominent argument is that Common Core is being treated as a one size fits all solution - students have different needs in education and are at different levels.
I agree with the second argument. Children are very different and there is not any one size fits all remedy for education.
However, Common Core is not that. Common Core is just the minimum standards that each kid has to learn. In order to achieve that goal, students can request help from teachers if they need it. If students feel they already know the core standards, then their can be a higher level class that expands more on the things they learned.
Common Core is just a goal that each student should meet. If they need help, they should receive it from the teacher, and then they can meet the goal. If they feel they already know the content, they can go into higher classes and go more into depth about each topic.
This isn't about making the government too big or not focusing on the students. This is about raising the bar and helping students accomplish their goals to become more educated and therefore have a better chance at succeeding in life.
Monday, September 14, 2015
No Taxation Without Representation: A Tale of Puerto Rico
Over 200 years ago, the United States of America was just a bunch of colonies controlled by Great Britain. We've all learned this story in school. At first, we were basically self-governing, but then Great Britain started getting too involved for our liking and started passing laws and taxes that we didn't like. We started proclaiming, "Taxation without representation is tyranny!" or "No taxation without representation!"
We were understandably mad, as we weren't getting any representation in the British Parliament, yet had to pay taxes. Which is why it is very confusing to see what the US is doing to Puerto Rico.
During the Spanish-American War in the late 1890s and a bit of the early 1900s, America was fighting against Spain in Cuba and in other places. In 1898, we took Puerto Rico and eventually got a lot of other territories from Spain, like the Philippines.
Puerto Rico became almost self-governing in 1952, when it officially became the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
So, what does this have to do with taxation and representation? A lot?
You see, Puerto Rico does get its representation in Congress. However, their representative can't vote on the issues meaning they just have a representative who can only talk, but can't take any action (which basically describes over half of Congress, even though they are allowed to vote on the issues).
Puerto Rico also does get to pass its own taxes, but must pay income taxes to the US Government.
What this means is that the people in the US Congress can vote on creating taxes for the Puerto Ricans to pay and they don't have any say of it. Sounds familiar? It should as this is exactly what the British Parliament did to the US colonies.
What's worse is that Puerto Rico is now in the midst of a financial crisis. According to the law, though, we can't help them out unless we admit them as a state. So, basically, we have a territory that is basically self-governing that we take taxes from and don't give them representation and we can't even help them out in their own financial crisis! This is a disaster!
We must ask the US Congress to formally admit Puerto Rico to the Union and give them proper representation in Congress. This isn't just a matter of helping Puerto Rico, it is also a matter of our own morality.
The United States of America can not repeat the mistakes of our predecessors. We have an inherent duty as one of the most, if not the most, powerful nations in the world to help our own citizens. I leave you with this quote to ponder from Thomas Paine in his famous pamphlet Common Sense that helped the US decide to break away from Great Britain.
"From the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom."
We were understandably mad, as we weren't getting any representation in the British Parliament, yet had to pay taxes. Which is why it is very confusing to see what the US is doing to Puerto Rico.
During the Spanish-American War in the late 1890s and a bit of the early 1900s, America was fighting against Spain in Cuba and in other places. In 1898, we took Puerto Rico and eventually got a lot of other territories from Spain, like the Philippines.
Puerto Rico became almost self-governing in 1952, when it officially became the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
So, what does this have to do with taxation and representation? A lot?
You see, Puerto Rico does get its representation in Congress. However, their representative can't vote on the issues meaning they just have a representative who can only talk, but can't take any action (which basically describes over half of Congress, even though they are allowed to vote on the issues).
Puerto Rico also does get to pass its own taxes, but must pay income taxes to the US Government.
What this means is that the people in the US Congress can vote on creating taxes for the Puerto Ricans to pay and they don't have any say of it. Sounds familiar? It should as this is exactly what the British Parliament did to the US colonies.
What's worse is that Puerto Rico is now in the midst of a financial crisis. According to the law, though, we can't help them out unless we admit them as a state. So, basically, we have a territory that is basically self-governing that we take taxes from and don't give them representation and we can't even help them out in their own financial crisis! This is a disaster!
We must ask the US Congress to formally admit Puerto Rico to the Union and give them proper representation in Congress. This isn't just a matter of helping Puerto Rico, it is also a matter of our own morality.
The United States of America can not repeat the mistakes of our predecessors. We have an inherent duty as one of the most, if not the most, powerful nations in the world to help our own citizens. I leave you with this quote to ponder from Thomas Paine in his famous pamphlet Common Sense that helped the US decide to break away from Great Britain.
"From the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom."
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Climate Change is Real
There is an idea floating in the midst of all the Republicans. Something they want to believe so badly, so they reject any other evidence. That idea is that climate change is not real, and if it is, it is not caused by humans.
Most recently, Ben Carson stated there was no evidence that climate change was real or caused by humans. The governor of California, Democrat Jerry Brown, sent him a letter along with a flash drive of information to educate Dr. Carson.
How do we know climate change is real? Well, it is obvious, as the high temperatures seem to be rising at a rate faster than ever before. The polar ice caps are melting, which could have huge catastrophes in store for the future.
Well, even if climate change is real, how can we know that humans caused it? Again, it is very obvious, as the time when the rate of temperature change drastically accelerated, was the time when we started using fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases emit particles into the air that weaken our ozone layer. Therefore, less radiation from the sun is blocked and more of the sun's rays reach us.
So, even if humans are causing climate change, what is the problem? Aren't higher temperatures good? This question like all the others have a very obvious answer. The extra added heat will melt the polar ice caps, causing a loss of life in the very north and very south for animals and plants. Also, more radiation will reach us from the sun. Flooding will be more frequent, and the temperatures could get to deadly values.
It is understandable why the Republicans would like to avoid confronting the truth about climate change. For one, it is easier to have less things to blame on humanity and worry about things. However, the biggest reason is probably that big companies, mostly fossil fuel companies that are usually huge Republican backers, rely on these fossil fuels that cause the global warming and the Republicans wouldn't want to lose potential support from these vital companies.
I think it is time we educate the Republicans - although not all deny climate change and some Democrats do, it is mostly on the right - and tell them that climate change is real and we must stop it. We must not approve of Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport even more oil across the US and we should focus on developing renewable resources. What we should not do is advocate and help release more harmful particles into our atmosphere.
This planet doesn't only belong to the American politicians, it belongs to the whole world. As the main reason for the rapidly deteriorating planet, it is our responsibility as humans to face the problems we cause and fix it instead of denying it.
Most recently, Ben Carson stated there was no evidence that climate change was real or caused by humans. The governor of California, Democrat Jerry Brown, sent him a letter along with a flash drive of information to educate Dr. Carson.
How do we know climate change is real? Well, it is obvious, as the high temperatures seem to be rising at a rate faster than ever before. The polar ice caps are melting, which could have huge catastrophes in store for the future.
Well, even if climate change is real, how can we know that humans caused it? Again, it is very obvious, as the time when the rate of temperature change drastically accelerated, was the time when we started using fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases emit particles into the air that weaken our ozone layer. Therefore, less radiation from the sun is blocked and more of the sun's rays reach us.
So, even if humans are causing climate change, what is the problem? Aren't higher temperatures good? This question like all the others have a very obvious answer. The extra added heat will melt the polar ice caps, causing a loss of life in the very north and very south for animals and plants. Also, more radiation will reach us from the sun. Flooding will be more frequent, and the temperatures could get to deadly values.
It is understandable why the Republicans would like to avoid confronting the truth about climate change. For one, it is easier to have less things to blame on humanity and worry about things. However, the biggest reason is probably that big companies, mostly fossil fuel companies that are usually huge Republican backers, rely on these fossil fuels that cause the global warming and the Republicans wouldn't want to lose potential support from these vital companies.
I think it is time we educate the Republicans - although not all deny climate change and some Democrats do, it is mostly on the right - and tell them that climate change is real and we must stop it. We must not approve of Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport even more oil across the US and we should focus on developing renewable resources. What we should not do is advocate and help release more harmful particles into our atmosphere.
This planet doesn't only belong to the American politicians, it belongs to the whole world. As the main reason for the rapidly deteriorating planet, it is our responsibility as humans to face the problems we cause and fix it instead of denying it.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Who Will Leave the GOP Field First?
As Labor Day approaches, the frenzied summer of the off-year is over. Now, voters are starting to pay attention and now is when the race gets more competitive.
This was where Herman Cain, in 2012, fell. Herman seemed to resemble Trump as both of them were businessmen without political experiences, both of them led the GOP field in the summer, and both weren't afraid of speaking their mind.
Will Donald Trump follow Cain in falling in the after-Summer period?
Probably not now, as Trump has too wide of a lead to fail. Maybe, his support will weaken slowly, but won't fall now.
So then, who will leave the race?
Rick Perry seems to be a good contender for this. He has lost a major aide in Iowa to Trump and is not properly paying his staffers. Although, he has a major PAC, he is not spending the money properly.
Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, and Lindsey Graham also seem great contenders. All were favorites of the party in the past and jumped in during the wrong election. All three of them are in the bottom part of the GOP field and have low name recognition.
George Pataki and Jim Gilmore should be the greatest contenders for this. Pataki registers at 1% and Gilmore doesn't even reach that. They should leave the field as they don't have any chance even in the greatest stretch of imagination.
Soon, we will see who leaves the field first. One things is for sure, though. We will not be able to see the eventual nominee until multiple rounds of elimination and millions of dollars will be spent in advertising blitzes. At the end, the winner of the GOP nomination will be the millionaires and billionaires who add money into the Super PACs and expect favors in return.
UPDATE: This article was right as Rick Perry left the race first! Now, let's see who leaves next.
This was where Herman Cain, in 2012, fell. Herman seemed to resemble Trump as both of them were businessmen without political experiences, both of them led the GOP field in the summer, and both weren't afraid of speaking their mind.
Will Donald Trump follow Cain in falling in the after-Summer period?
Probably not now, as Trump has too wide of a lead to fail. Maybe, his support will weaken slowly, but won't fall now.
So then, who will leave the race?
Rick Perry seems to be a good contender for this. He has lost a major aide in Iowa to Trump and is not properly paying his staffers. Although, he has a major PAC, he is not spending the money properly.
Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, and Lindsey Graham also seem great contenders. All were favorites of the party in the past and jumped in during the wrong election. All three of them are in the bottom part of the GOP field and have low name recognition.
George Pataki and Jim Gilmore should be the greatest contenders for this. Pataki registers at 1% and Gilmore doesn't even reach that. They should leave the field as they don't have any chance even in the greatest stretch of imagination.
Soon, we will see who leaves the field first. One things is for sure, though. We will not be able to see the eventual nominee until multiple rounds of elimination and millions of dollars will be spent in advertising blitzes. At the end, the winner of the GOP nomination will be the millionaires and billionaires who add money into the Super PACs and expect favors in return.
UPDATE: This article was right as Rick Perry left the race first! Now, let's see who leaves next.
Why We Need More Democratic Debates
Recently, about a week ago, Martin O'Malley slammed the DNC at the annual DNC meet which was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He stated that 6 Democratic Debates were too few and wondered who was making this decision and for what purpose.
I agree with O'Malley. The Democratic field is pretty small, the 6th candidate in Lawrence Lessig jumped in today and Joe Biden may be the final addition, so we won't have to worry about crowded debates. If we hold more debates, we will be able to hear each candidate fully and be able to differentiate each of their positions.
Hillary Clinton right now is the frontrunner. However, Bernie Sanders has been gaining in on her. Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee are trailing by a lot. Lessig will probably join those four and Biden would be in the middle.
The debates would provide a chance for the voters to hear the thoughts of Chafee (who doesn't even register 1% in the polls) and compare it to Clinton's. Maybe, the voters would like what they heard and boost Chafee with more support.
The DNC Debates would provide a chance for the lower ranked candidates to express their views and higher ranked candidates to strengthen their positions. Six of these debates ARE too few, and we need more.
It is understandable where the DNC is coming from, as in previous elections they had too many debates to keep track. However, this is also too extreme. I think the DNC should hold 10 debates, with at least one in each of the early voting states.
This would make the Democrat field stronger and let voters be more informed. This would choose the Democrat nominee. This would help our election be a more open one.
I agree with O'Malley. The Democratic field is pretty small, the 6th candidate in Lawrence Lessig jumped in today and Joe Biden may be the final addition, so we won't have to worry about crowded debates. If we hold more debates, we will be able to hear each candidate fully and be able to differentiate each of their positions.
Hillary Clinton right now is the frontrunner. However, Bernie Sanders has been gaining in on her. Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee are trailing by a lot. Lessig will probably join those four and Biden would be in the middle.
The debates would provide a chance for the voters to hear the thoughts of Chafee (who doesn't even register 1% in the polls) and compare it to Clinton's. Maybe, the voters would like what they heard and boost Chafee with more support.
The DNC Debates would provide a chance for the lower ranked candidates to express their views and higher ranked candidates to strengthen their positions. Six of these debates ARE too few, and we need more.
It is understandable where the DNC is coming from, as in previous elections they had too many debates to keep track. However, this is also too extreme. I think the DNC should hold 10 debates, with at least one in each of the early voting states.
This would make the Democrat field stronger and let voters be more informed. This would choose the Democrat nominee. This would help our election be a more open one.
Friday, August 21, 2015
It's Time for Public Funding of Elections
In America, our elections are run by the millionaires and billionaires. During elections, voters can contribute to their candidate, or they can donate to a super PAC. What is a super PAC? Well, that is the thing that is destroying our elections.
Basically, a candidate has a maximum donation he can receive from a potential donor (the amount is $2,700 in case you were wondering). However, a super PAC can receive unlimited donations.
Super PACs are basically an "independent" PAC that usually center around one main candidate. These PACs can receive unlimited donation amounts from donors. So, let's take one example.
Bob is running for President. He registers at 5% in the polls, which is the last place in the polls of the candidates in his party running for President. He has received only $50,000 and is considering dropping out of the race.
Meet the Super PAC Change America, a pro-Bob Super PAC. They meet in a closed room with several billionaires. The next day, 3 of the billionaires each pledge donations of 1.2 million dollars to Change America.
Change America can't donate their newfound 3.6 million dollars to Bob directly. They can only donate $5,000 to him. So, instead, they use it for themselves to promote Bob.
Change America air multiple ads across the United States of America. 3 weeks later, the formerly unpopular Bob is at the top of his party's polls with 53%.
Even though he had bad policies and he was unpopular, a couple donations from a few billionaires changed the standings and turned the tables dramatically. Bob essentially was catapulted to the top by these people.
Now, these people helped Bob get elected President. What would they expect in return? Maybe, they would ask a few favors as to who should be put into Bob's cabinet or which bills he should veto or sign. Bob would have to oblige, because he would want to win re-election and their support is integral to his success.
This system doesn't represent democracy. It represents elections where candidates are puppets. The real players are the millionaires and billionaires behind the stage pulling the strings and getting their candidate propelled to national success and fame.
We have to fix this system. A couple years ago, some of the limitations were removed in the Citizens United vs. FEC case under the guise of "it's just freedom of speech". We need to fix this system in order to actually experience the freedom of opinion. This is one of many hurdles we have in fixing elections, but unlike other hurdles - this can be removed.
Basically, a candidate has a maximum donation he can receive from a potential donor (the amount is $2,700 in case you were wondering). However, a super PAC can receive unlimited donations.
Super PACs are basically an "independent" PAC that usually center around one main candidate. These PACs can receive unlimited donation amounts from donors. So, let's take one example.
Bob is running for President. He registers at 5% in the polls, which is the last place in the polls of the candidates in his party running for President. He has received only $50,000 and is considering dropping out of the race.
Meet the Super PAC Change America, a pro-Bob Super PAC. They meet in a closed room with several billionaires. The next day, 3 of the billionaires each pledge donations of 1.2 million dollars to Change America.
Change America can't donate their newfound 3.6 million dollars to Bob directly. They can only donate $5,000 to him. So, instead, they use it for themselves to promote Bob.
Change America air multiple ads across the United States of America. 3 weeks later, the formerly unpopular Bob is at the top of his party's polls with 53%.
Even though he had bad policies and he was unpopular, a couple donations from a few billionaires changed the standings and turned the tables dramatically. Bob essentially was catapulted to the top by these people.
Now, these people helped Bob get elected President. What would they expect in return? Maybe, they would ask a few favors as to who should be put into Bob's cabinet or which bills he should veto or sign. Bob would have to oblige, because he would want to win re-election and their support is integral to his success.
This system doesn't represent democracy. It represents elections where candidates are puppets. The real players are the millionaires and billionaires behind the stage pulling the strings and getting their candidate propelled to national success and fame.
We have to fix this system. A couple years ago, some of the limitations were removed in the Citizens United vs. FEC case under the guise of "it's just freedom of speech". We need to fix this system in order to actually experience the freedom of opinion. This is one of many hurdles we have in fixing elections, but unlike other hurdles - this can be removed.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Time for Bi-Party Debates?
The 2016 presidential election has multiple debates within each party before the primaries and caucuses in each party. However, what if we had debates before the primaries and caucuses with candidates from both parties in them.
Imagine a debate stage with 10 candidates. The top 5 Democrats and top 5 Republicans (granted, the Democrat field is smaller, but having the same amount from each party would make it more interesting and 10 worked for the first Republican debate) in the presidential election would go on stage and debate it out.
This strategy might actually work. The Republicans, anyway, were talking bad about Hillary in their 1st debate and in general this election and the Democrats have been attacking the Republicans. What if you combined both of them on a single stage?
It would be harder to personally attack Hillary Clinton when she is standing a few spaces across from you and ready to level a counterattack. Meanwhile, you could show the voters of your party that you can take care of both the inner party problems and counter any rebuttals from the other party.
This would show the potential voters which candidate could actually make a point and explain it to someone on the other side of the political spectrum while convincing members of their own party. That is a trait that should be considered when each party chooses their nominee in their respective conventions in the summer of 2016.
This system could work out. Maybe about a week before the Iowa Caucus or New Hampshire Primary, one of these debates could be held in one of these states. That way, the voters will get to personally see each of the major candidates and then know who to vote for by the end of the debate.
However, this probably wouldn't work out due to differences between the DNC and RNC and the fact that each party already have debates around the same time.
Come the 2020 or 2024 election, though, I would like to see this system implemented. It will be a better judge of the candidates than any normal inter-party debate ever could be.
Imagine a debate stage with 10 candidates. The top 5 Democrats and top 5 Republicans (granted, the Democrat field is smaller, but having the same amount from each party would make it more interesting and 10 worked for the first Republican debate) in the presidential election would go on stage and debate it out.
This strategy might actually work. The Republicans, anyway, were talking bad about Hillary in their 1st debate and in general this election and the Democrats have been attacking the Republicans. What if you combined both of them on a single stage?
It would be harder to personally attack Hillary Clinton when she is standing a few spaces across from you and ready to level a counterattack. Meanwhile, you could show the voters of your party that you can take care of both the inner party problems and counter any rebuttals from the other party.
This would show the potential voters which candidate could actually make a point and explain it to someone on the other side of the political spectrum while convincing members of their own party. That is a trait that should be considered when each party chooses their nominee in their respective conventions in the summer of 2016.
This system could work out. Maybe about a week before the Iowa Caucus or New Hampshire Primary, one of these debates could be held in one of these states. That way, the voters will get to personally see each of the major candidates and then know who to vote for by the end of the debate.
However, this probably wouldn't work out due to differences between the DNC and RNC and the fact that each party already have debates around the same time.
Come the 2020 or 2024 election, though, I would like to see this system implemented. It will be a better judge of the candidates than any normal inter-party debate ever could be.
Why the Republicans Won't Win the Latino Vote
The Republicans in recent elections have been notorious for not winning the minority vote. There are a few exceptions, but that seems to be their fatal flaw - not winning the vote of the poor, the female vote, and minority ethnicity vote.
This election won't turn out to be much different. Immigration issues are a big deal in America and the Republicans seem to be turning down any chances of wining the Latino vote despite having to Cuban-American Senators running for President (Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz)
Donald Trump probably started this all in his opening speech when he stated that the Mexican government were sending their worst criminals across the border into America.
This statement is wrong in so many ways, it's difficult to tell where to start.
A lot of the illegal immigrants aren't Mexican - they also come from Nicaragua, Guatemala, and other parts of Central America. One way to alienate the Latin American voters - calling them all Mexicans.
Also, most of the Mexican (and other Latin America) immigrants come to America as legal immigrants, not illegally. Another way to alienate the Latin American voters - saying they all come illegally just because of a few anomalies.
Crime is not only caused by illegal immigration. The USA has a lot of homegrown crime and although it is easy to blame it on the immigrants, we are all responsible for this. Also, a vast majority of illegal immigrants are innocent people who crossed the border to have a better life. The final way to alienate Latin American voters - generalize them as criminals.
He is also making a potential enemy of the Mexican government for blaming them for the current immigration crisis. How could they be responsible for the independent decisions made by not only their citizens, but citizens of other countries?
It's not just Donald Trump making these offensive statements. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and other prominent Republicans said that they were against a path of citizenship for the illegal immigrants. Scott Walker was only a little better when he said, "No amnesty, if someone wants to be a citizen, they have to go back to their country of origin and get in line behind everyone else who's waiting."
Some of these so-called "illegal aliens" were born in the US or lived here since they were a child. The US may be the only home they remember. Others fled to the US for a reason, to have a better life
Think, Republican candidates, think. These immigrants are just like the Pilgrims we glorify in our education. They came here for a better life for themselves and their children. Why would we send them back to their country of origin which they obviously left for a reason?
Coming the 2016 election, the Republicans will not be much different from the previous elections in that they will not win the significant Latino vote (the biggest minority group in our nation). They will just be ceding the Latino vote to the Democrats once again like they've been doing for a long time and if the continue this way, the Republican Party could fade away like their predecessors the Federalists and the Whigs.
This election won't turn out to be much different. Immigration issues are a big deal in America and the Republicans seem to be turning down any chances of wining the Latino vote despite having to Cuban-American Senators running for President (Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz)
Donald Trump probably started this all in his opening speech when he stated that the Mexican government were sending their worst criminals across the border into America.
This statement is wrong in so many ways, it's difficult to tell where to start.
A lot of the illegal immigrants aren't Mexican - they also come from Nicaragua, Guatemala, and other parts of Central America. One way to alienate the Latin American voters - calling them all Mexicans.
Also, most of the Mexican (and other Latin America) immigrants come to America as legal immigrants, not illegally. Another way to alienate the Latin American voters - saying they all come illegally just because of a few anomalies.
Crime is not only caused by illegal immigration. The USA has a lot of homegrown crime and although it is easy to blame it on the immigrants, we are all responsible for this. Also, a vast majority of illegal immigrants are innocent people who crossed the border to have a better life. The final way to alienate Latin American voters - generalize them as criminals.
He is also making a potential enemy of the Mexican government for blaming them for the current immigration crisis. How could they be responsible for the independent decisions made by not only their citizens, but citizens of other countries?
It's not just Donald Trump making these offensive statements. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and other prominent Republicans said that they were against a path of citizenship for the illegal immigrants. Scott Walker was only a little better when he said, "No amnesty, if someone wants to be a citizen, they have to go back to their country of origin and get in line behind everyone else who's waiting."
Some of these so-called "illegal aliens" were born in the US or lived here since they were a child. The US may be the only home they remember. Others fled to the US for a reason, to have a better life
Think, Republican candidates, think. These immigrants are just like the Pilgrims we glorify in our education. They came here for a better life for themselves and their children. Why would we send them back to their country of origin which they obviously left for a reason?
Coming the 2016 election, the Republicans will not be much different from the previous elections in that they will not win the significant Latino vote (the biggest minority group in our nation). They will just be ceding the Latino vote to the Democrats once again like they've been doing for a long time and if the continue this way, the Republican Party could fade away like their predecessors the Federalists and the Whigs.
Why Socialism is the American Dream
With the unexpectedly successful presidential candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders, there is some question on what he means when he calls himself a socialist. No doubt there would be some post-Cold War fear that socialist means communist as many people have made the two terms into synonyms. However, that is not true.
On the political spectrum, if you start at the very right, you have Fascism (think Mussolini and Hitler). Then, you get into the Tea Party and Libertarian (think Ted Cruz and Rand Paul) movements. You move a bit more to the left, you get Standard Republican (most of the Republicans, like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker). Move a bit more to the left, you get Moderate Republican (like George Pataki). Any more left, and you reach the center of the political spectrum - the Independents (a mix of both views - not many politicians fit this view. An early 2000s Trump could fit this view.)
Move to the left a bit more and you get Moderate Democrat (like Jim Webb). A bit more to the left and you get Standard Democrat (most of the Democrats - Hillary Clinton is 3/4 the way between Moderate and Standard Democrat). Move to the left some more, and you get Socialism (Sen. Sanders). Any more to the left, and that's when you get Communism (Fidel Castro, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, etc.)
Comparing socialism to communism, is like comparing the libertarians and tea partiers to fascists. They aren't that extreme, they are just a bit more extreme than the standards of their party.
Socialism isn't that bad. One of the main parts of socialism is universal health coverage. That means free healthcare for all individuals, regardless of their economic status. Instead of having people who don't make much money not being able to get treatment because of a lack of money, it lets anyone get treatment without having to pay money.
However, this would come directly from our taxes. This is not that bad, though. Think of it as like another Social Security tax - you are paying for your future self basically and helping others also. Plus, another main part of socialism is increasing the taxes on the richest 1% of America to make sure that wealth is evenly distributed without making it that people just get money while not working hard.
Another part of socialism is the minimum wage. Sanders advocates for a $15 minimum wage. Arguments against a higher minimum wage include that it will make people less motivated to work harder or that it will make it harder for small business to employ more employees.
However, you could make a national minimum wage a bit less, like $12 or Obama's proposed $10.10. Then, in areas with a higher cost of living, you could slowly raise their minimum wage. The minimum wage doesn't make people less motivated to work either. In fact, it is the opposite.
$15 would be the bare minimum and if they work harder, they could gain even more. The entire idea of a minimum wage is to create a minimum total that ensures people who work a lot of hours in a week won't be under the poverty line.
As Sanders stated, "Nobody who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty."
I agree to that and I don't know why anyone would disagree.
There are other aspects to socialism, such as having public colleges tuition free and focusing on the reformation of criminals more than the punishment of criminals. However, these three concepts represent the main focus of socialism. Everyone should have a chance to succeed in life if they work hard, no matter which socioeconomic status they belong on. The American Dream is basically on the same lines. No matter where you come from, if you work hard, you can succeed in America.
Monday, August 17, 2015
The Democrat's Dream: A 3rd Party Trump
Donald Trump, real estate billionaire, former host of Celebrity Apprentice, and the Republican Party's frontrunner in a crowded 17 candidate field, has stated multiple times that he is willing to run as an Independent or 3rd Party candidate.
The first time he stated this was more of a threat. He thought the Republican Party was not treating him nicely, and if they continued to do this he would just break away from the party and run as a 3rd party candidate (in which we are including as being an Independent)
The most recent time came in the GOP Debate. The moderator asked the candidates to raise their hand if they wouldn't pledge to run as a third party candidate in the case they didn't win the Republican nomination. Only one man raised his hand. Trump.
In the case he doesn't win the nomination, he is still considered a long shot candidate, or feels he is not being treated fairly by the Republicans, Trump apparently will run as a 3rd party candidate.
This would be the Democratic Party's dream. With controversy over Clinton's email server and with possible worry over having a socialist president in Bernie Sanders, or the fact that the only Democrat candidate under 60 so far is Martin O'Malley (aged 52), the Democrats could've feared losing this election. However, this would save their election chances.
Trump is not a conservative. Nor is he a liberal. He is somewhere between and he will definitely take away some of the Democrat vote. However, he would almost certainly split the Republican vote. We could see a repeat of the US Presidential election of 1912.
In 1912, ex-President Theodore Roosevelt challenged the incumbent President William Howard Taft for the Republican nomination. Shockingly, the popular Roosevelt lost to his former protege Taft.
He decided to run as a candidate for the Progressive (or Bull-Moose) Party in the 1912 election. The Democrat candidate was Thomas Woodrow Wilson from New Jersey.
Now, we have to take in mind that all of the 4 major candidates were liberal. Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft were both Progressives and Woodrow Wilson was between a very leftist Democrat and a Socialist. Socialist Party candidate Eugene V Debs was an actual socialist.
Nevertheless, Debs didn't get much popular votes and no electoral votes. Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican votes and electoral votes. Wilson was able to get away with a win in the crowded election and ended up as the 28th President of the United States.
If Roosevelt hadn't ran as a 3rd Party candidate, Wilson would've gotten more votes, sure, but Taft might've won the election. Might've.
If Donald Trump wants to try to do this in 2016, that's his choice. However, he will probably not win the election and the Republican candidate probably won't.
In the case of a third party Trump presidential campaign, Trump will essentially hand the election over to the Democrats without a fight.
UPDATE: Donald Trump has declared he will support the eventual Republican nominee and not run for a third party bid or as an Independent.
The first time he stated this was more of a threat. He thought the Republican Party was not treating him nicely, and if they continued to do this he would just break away from the party and run as a 3rd party candidate (in which we are including as being an Independent)
The most recent time came in the GOP Debate. The moderator asked the candidates to raise their hand if they wouldn't pledge to run as a third party candidate in the case they didn't win the Republican nomination. Only one man raised his hand. Trump.
In the case he doesn't win the nomination, he is still considered a long shot candidate, or feels he is not being treated fairly by the Republicans, Trump apparently will run as a 3rd party candidate.
This would be the Democratic Party's dream. With controversy over Clinton's email server and with possible worry over having a socialist president in Bernie Sanders, or the fact that the only Democrat candidate under 60 so far is Martin O'Malley (aged 52), the Democrats could've feared losing this election. However, this would save their election chances.
Trump is not a conservative. Nor is he a liberal. He is somewhere between and he will definitely take away some of the Democrat vote. However, he would almost certainly split the Republican vote. We could see a repeat of the US Presidential election of 1912.
In 1912, ex-President Theodore Roosevelt challenged the incumbent President William Howard Taft for the Republican nomination. Shockingly, the popular Roosevelt lost to his former protege Taft.
He decided to run as a candidate for the Progressive (or Bull-Moose) Party in the 1912 election. The Democrat candidate was Thomas Woodrow Wilson from New Jersey.
Now, we have to take in mind that all of the 4 major candidates were liberal. Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft were both Progressives and Woodrow Wilson was between a very leftist Democrat and a Socialist. Socialist Party candidate Eugene V Debs was an actual socialist.
Nevertheless, Debs didn't get much popular votes and no electoral votes. Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican votes and electoral votes. Wilson was able to get away with a win in the crowded election and ended up as the 28th President of the United States.
If Roosevelt hadn't ran as a 3rd Party candidate, Wilson would've gotten more votes, sure, but Taft might've won the election. Might've.
If Donald Trump wants to try to do this in 2016, that's his choice. However, he will probably not win the election and the Republican candidate probably won't.
In the case of a third party Trump presidential campaign, Trump will essentially hand the election over to the Democrats without a fight.
UPDATE: Donald Trump has declared he will support the eventual Republican nominee and not run for a third party bid or as an Independent.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Why Isn't Durbin the Democrat Senate Leader?
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the Minority Leader of the Senate and leader of the Senate Democrats, announced earlier this year he wasn't going to seek re-election in the 2016 elections.
This would mean that on January 3, 2017 the Democrats would have to find, and elect, a new leader.
If things were taken from a hierarchical point of view, Sen. Richard Joseph Durbin (D-IL), would've been the next Senate Democrat Leader as the Minority Whip of the Senate. He is, in fact, the 2nd ranked Democrat of the Senate after Reid himself.
However, things don't always follow that point of view. If so, Richard Cheney (George W. Bush's Vice President) would've ran for President in 2008 and Joe Biden. would've automatically jumped into the election this year.
No, instead, the favorite for the position is Sen. Charles Ellis Schumer (D-NY) who is essentially the 3rd ranked Democrat in the Senate after Durbin and Reid.
Experience doesn't always matter for positions of leadership. If it did, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would've been the Senate Democrat Leader as he has served over 40 years (the most in the entire Senate). However, even if it did, Durbin would beat out Schumer as Durbin has served as Senator since 1997 and Schumer has been serving as Senator since 1999.
Fine, so you are not including their hierarchical rank or their experience. The only major criteria left is party loyalty, right?
Senator Schumer was one of the first Democrats to announce his opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal, which was negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, who was a Senator (D-MA) and the Democrat presidential candidate for the 2004 elections. This deal was also made under the leadership of President Barack Obama (D-IL).
Meanwhile, as of the time I'm writing this, Senator Durbin has emerged as the top Senate Democrat to support this deal with Harry Reid remaining undecided.
So with party loyalty, hierarchical rank, and experience not mattering - what really matters for this choice to be the next Senate Democrat Leader? I don't know, but what I do know is that January 3, 2017 coming it is almost certain Sen. Schumer will be the leader of the Democrat Senate with Durbin and Reid already endorsing him. Schumer will go from 3rd ranked to top ranked Senate Democrat, while Durbin will sit on as the 2nd ranked Senate Democrat - the whip of the party - the way he has been since January 3, 2005.
This would mean that on January 3, 2017 the Democrats would have to find, and elect, a new leader.
If things were taken from a hierarchical point of view, Sen. Richard Joseph Durbin (D-IL), would've been the next Senate Democrat Leader as the Minority Whip of the Senate. He is, in fact, the 2nd ranked Democrat of the Senate after Reid himself.
However, things don't always follow that point of view. If so, Richard Cheney (George W. Bush's Vice President) would've ran for President in 2008 and Joe Biden. would've automatically jumped into the election this year.
No, instead, the favorite for the position is Sen. Charles Ellis Schumer (D-NY) who is essentially the 3rd ranked Democrat in the Senate after Durbin and Reid.
Experience doesn't always matter for positions of leadership. If it did, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would've been the Senate Democrat Leader as he has served over 40 years (the most in the entire Senate). However, even if it did, Durbin would beat out Schumer as Durbin has served as Senator since 1997 and Schumer has been serving as Senator since 1999.
Fine, so you are not including their hierarchical rank or their experience. The only major criteria left is party loyalty, right?
Senator Schumer was one of the first Democrats to announce his opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal, which was negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, who was a Senator (D-MA) and the Democrat presidential candidate for the 2004 elections. This deal was also made under the leadership of President Barack Obama (D-IL).
Meanwhile, as of the time I'm writing this, Senator Durbin has emerged as the top Senate Democrat to support this deal with Harry Reid remaining undecided.
So with party loyalty, hierarchical rank, and experience not mattering - what really matters for this choice to be the next Senate Democrat Leader? I don't know, but what I do know is that January 3, 2017 coming it is almost certain Sen. Schumer will be the leader of the Democrat Senate with Durbin and Reid already endorsing him. Schumer will go from 3rd ranked to top ranked Senate Democrat, while Durbin will sit on as the 2nd ranked Senate Democrat - the whip of the party - the way he has been since January 3, 2005.
#FeelTheBern - Behind the Sanders and Trump Revolutions
This summer has been the summer of long shot candidates. On the Democrat side, there is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and on the Republican (and possibly Independent, but we'll get back to that later) side, there is real estate mogul Donald Trump.
Senator Bernard Sanders, who is in fact an Independent Senator (not a Democrat Senator) and is a self-proclaimed socialist, started his presidential campaign with very little name recognition. Many thought he was just in the race to be a possible running mate option to Hillary Clinton. However, he has been gaining record crowds across the US and despite not having a Super PAC and instead having contributions from supporters, he is now the sole major contender to Hillary Clinton (unless Vice President Joe Biden jumps in). In fact, in the latest poll in New Hampshire (which neighbors his home state of Vermont and holds the first primary in the nation), he leads Hillary 44%-37%.
On the other side, almost his complete opposite, there is billionaire Donald Trump. Known for making outlandish and insulting statements, he seems to be gaining a cult-like following of people who are frustrated with the government. Tapping into this anger seems to be the main reason he is leading the crowded GOP pack. In the latest poll, he is way ahead with 23% of the support in a crowded Republican field with 17 candidates. Despite having no political experience, or maybe because of that, he is becoming a favorite among the Republicans. He, like Sanders, doesn't have a PAC and instead is financing his own campaign.
Both of these candidates are challenging the norm of their parties and started their campaigns as long shots, but are slowly becoming major contenders. The expected Bush-Clinton election may now be overhauled and turned into a Trump-Sanders election!
Senator Bernard Sanders, who is in fact an Independent Senator (not a Democrat Senator) and is a self-proclaimed socialist, started his presidential campaign with very little name recognition. Many thought he was just in the race to be a possible running mate option to Hillary Clinton. However, he has been gaining record crowds across the US and despite not having a Super PAC and instead having contributions from supporters, he is now the sole major contender to Hillary Clinton (unless Vice President Joe Biden jumps in). In fact, in the latest poll in New Hampshire (which neighbors his home state of Vermont and holds the first primary in the nation), he leads Hillary 44%-37%.
On the other side, almost his complete opposite, there is billionaire Donald Trump. Known for making outlandish and insulting statements, he seems to be gaining a cult-like following of people who are frustrated with the government. Tapping into this anger seems to be the main reason he is leading the crowded GOP pack. In the latest poll, he is way ahead with 23% of the support in a crowded Republican field with 17 candidates. Despite having no political experience, or maybe because of that, he is becoming a favorite among the Republicans. He, like Sanders, doesn't have a PAC and instead is financing his own campaign.
Both of these candidates are challenging the norm of their parties and started their campaigns as long shots, but are slowly becoming major contenders. The expected Bush-Clinton election may now be overhauled and turned into a Trump-Sanders election!
Why Joe Biden Should Run
Lately, reports have been gathering that Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (D-DE) is actively considering a bid for the 2016 election.
If he does enter, he would be a long shot candidate, ahead of the likes of Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee, but definitely behind Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, the expected winner of the race and frontrunner, has lost some of her lead to Sanders in the race as he has unexpectedly wound up being the major contender to Clinton's campaign. In fact, in New Hampshire (where the 1st primary is held), Sanders leads Clinton 44%-37% in the latest poll.
A possible Joe Biden campaign would mean he would start at 3rd place in the polls. So, why should he run for President if he would start behind?
Hillary is not having as easy of a time as most people would've expected. Sanders has challenged her to move to the left on many issues. A Joe Biden candidacy would mean a further challenge and make her take a stand on some unanswered issues like the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Plus, in the case in which he won the nomination (which might not be so unlikely considering his support in early voting states like South Carolina and Nevada), he probably would stay for only one term due to his age and wish to be with family.
He has plenty of experience also that would normally constitute a presidential favorite. He was one of the youngest elected Senators elected (elected at age 29 and sworn in at age 30) and served as Senator for 36 years. Then, he was Vice President for 2 terms. Now, he has a chance to be our President.
Even if he won't win the nomination, Joe will definitely alter the views of the Democrat nominee and that may be the biggest reason of all why he should run.
If he does enter, he would be a long shot candidate, ahead of the likes of Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee, but definitely behind Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, the expected winner of the race and frontrunner, has lost some of her lead to Sanders in the race as he has unexpectedly wound up being the major contender to Clinton's campaign. In fact, in New Hampshire (where the 1st primary is held), Sanders leads Clinton 44%-37% in the latest poll.
A possible Joe Biden campaign would mean he would start at 3rd place in the polls. So, why should he run for President if he would start behind?
Hillary is not having as easy of a time as most people would've expected. Sanders has challenged her to move to the left on many issues. A Joe Biden candidacy would mean a further challenge and make her take a stand on some unanswered issues like the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Plus, in the case in which he won the nomination (which might not be so unlikely considering his support in early voting states like South Carolina and Nevada), he probably would stay for only one term due to his age and wish to be with family.
He has plenty of experience also that would normally constitute a presidential favorite. He was one of the youngest elected Senators elected (elected at age 29 and sworn in at age 30) and served as Senator for 36 years. Then, he was Vice President for 2 terms. Now, he has a chance to be our President.
Even if he won't win the nomination, Joe will definitely alter the views of the Democrat nominee and that may be the biggest reason of all why he should run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)