Tag Archives: Trump

What You Need To Know About the Rarely Used Insurrection Act Trump is Threatening to Invoke

Minneapolis Police Death Washington Protest

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law that empowers the president of the United States to deploy military troops within the United States in specific circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.

The man whose secretary of state never denied calling a moron says he will invoke the law and send the military to US cities where there are demonstrations and riots “if a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents.”

The question is, can he do this?

To be sure, and throughout the history of this country, this law is rarely used and the last time it was invoked was back in in 1992 to quell the Los Angeles riots after the acquittal of four white police officers in the merciless beating of Rodney King, a black man.

Before that, the act was used in 1989 during widespread looting in St. Croix, Virgin Islands, after Hurricane Hugo.

So, technically, yes, he can but not as easily as he makes it sound. As I conclude below, certainly not under these circumstances.

Another question is whether the president can do this on his own, without the request of the affected state or states and here legal experts say he can.

However, there is a presumption (and this is my surmise on this) that the president taking this action is doing so for proper, safety and law and order related reasons, not to wag the dog or to impress his base on what a strongman he is or can be, or to distract from his other failures such as disastrous response to a pandemic that is still ravaging the country.

Otherwise, if there is no basis to invoke the act and one does so for these nefarious or bogus reasons, namely, to impress his base or for personal political gain, then that is clearly abuse of office and some can argue an impeachable offense.

My view on this is #GeorgeFloyd demonstrations have made their point let the action now focus on making sure the anger is converted to votes in November and let’s root out those in elective office that have been enablers of all things bad for the country, starting with the presidency and on down.

This will (a) deny the man opportunity to invoke this law and (b) make sure we need not worry about shameless and reckless shenanigans and antics like this after November.

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 2, 2020 in Politics


Tags: , ,

Trump’s Foreign Policy In Africa


In Trump’s Foreign Policy in Africa, I summarize views recently expressed in a Conference Call organized by the Washington, DC Think Tank Wilson Center.


Customarily, when dominant parties in mature democracies swap power after an election, one can generally predict the direction of the country policy-wise, given the victorious party’s ideology.

Thus, if the winning party is liberal, one can expect a government friendly to the needs of the underprivileged and the middle-class.

If, on the other hand, the winning party is conservative, one can expect a government hostile to the same groups but friendly to the rich.

Making the situation even more fascinating, the President-elect is someone who has been a life-long member and supporter of the losing party and one, if life depended on it, would readily admit he’s more aligned with the ideology of the losing party than the one he won the elections under its banner. This leads to the question many have been asking and continue to, what kind of President will Donald Trump be?

The short answer is, nobody knows.

Overall, McNamee is of the view that none other than African dictators and others elected under dubious circumstances are gleeful with the election of Trump because they can point to his election and say, “See, it’s not only in Africa people who don’t win the popular votes are elected President: The US too does the same thing. So ignore their lectures about democratic elections blah, blah” — to paraphrase what the good doctor said.

That sentiment doesn’t bode well for democracy in Africa.

Leave a comment

Posted by on December 13, 2016 in Politics


Tags: , , ,

Republicans Have Once Again Not Disappointed In Proving Their Tone-Deafness


Angry that FBI Director James Comey eviscerated their last hopes of derailing or altogether killing the presidential hopes of Hillary Clinton by not recommending her indictment, Congressional Republicans hurriedly called an “emergency” hearing and hauled Comey to Congress to berate him on his intellectually, factually and legally sound decision to not recommend indictment of the Democratic Party presumptive nominee and Republicans’ worst nightmare, the aforementioned Hillary Clinton.

The whole rationale—if one can call it that, for hauling Comey to Capitol Hill was simply to discredit him, which is moronic on so many levels.

For one, Director Comey is probably the only person in government there has been unanimous agreement by everyone that his honor and integrity is unassailable.

Unassailable, that is, until the man made a decision informed by facts and law not to indict Hillary, which suddenly unleashed all manner of derision and unprecedented efforts to discredit the man.

Indeed, every one of these same Republicans now trashing and discrediting Comey have all along said that they had total confidence in Comey thoroughly investigating the matter and making the “right” recommendation to the Attorney General as to his factual findings and conclusions.

The “right” decision that is, if it was a decision to recommend indictment which is the only decision these hapless partisans wanted from day one regardless of what the facts turned out to be.

Now that the decision Comey made was not to indict, the condemnation of both the decision and the man has been swift and severe and more so during the hastily arranged “emergency” hearing today.

I actually delayed a meeting I was to have this morning for two hours just so I can at least watch the proceedings, which I did but had to leave after about two hours fully satisfied the hearing was probably the best thing Hillary could have wished for today, given what I observed and twitted immediately to the Chair of the Committee holding the hearing Jason Chavetz when he finished his questioning Comey, “@jasonthehouse you look shaken perhaps realizing hauling #Comey to testify was bone-headed decision given he has dessimated your rationale.”

Then I heard Rep. Gerry Connolly render one of the best exposure I have heard anyone give exposing what a sham all these hearings have been and shamelessly set up simply to bring down Hillary and each has failed miserably and actually one can argue combined they have actually had the opposite effect.

After two hours of watching, I left for my meeting knowing as I note above this was a good day for Hillary for several reasons, not the least of which is, by hurriedly holding the hearing, the hapless Republican partisans gave Comey an opportunity to explain his decision in manner that took the sting away from what he said in his presser in which he announced his decision but in a manner so painfully excoriating for Hillary it would have taken a long time to heal but the wounds are quickly healing thanks to the stupidity of these hapless Republicans.

I have now watched the entirety of the hearing and reconfirmed what I earlier concluded, namely, Republicans once again have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory largely owing to their bone-headedness or political ineptness, whichever you fancy.

I am not just saying that; it’s actually the case.

For example, thanks to the hearing, we now know several facts that completely undermine what case the Republicans were hoping to make against Hillary, based on what Comey said the other day.

There’s no need to go through all of these facts and explanations Comey provided that actually lessen the sting on Hillary from his presser the other day but here are just the highlights that go to the core of the case the bigoted Clown and therefore Republicans were going to make or will still make against Hillary.

First, Republicans and their right wing media echo chambers have been shouting to hoarseness since Comey gave the presser that what he said proved that Hillary lied and has been lying about the emails.

Indeed, the hapless Republicans went further today and accused Hillary for lying under oath when she testified about these issues during the sham Benghazi hearing.

To their chagrin, Comey, in fact, expressly said Hillary did not lie!

Stunned, Committee Chair Chavitz asked Comey if he was aware that Hillary had lied to the House and whether he was going to investigate her for that.

By asking the question, Chavitz demonstrated in seconds how incompetent he is as Comey slapped him back, “there has been no referral made by the House.” “Oh, you mean we need to do that—well, we’re sending one today,” Chavitz shot back almost giddy about yet another investigation of Hillary!

Small problem and one of the many reasons why hauling Comey to testify was moronic: Comey in his testimony tore to shreds the basis for such referral because he offered an explanation why what Hillary said under oath is not perjury even if it’s in contradiction of what he said!

Comey also provided testimony and new facts and information in response to several questions that make the other charges of lying under oath the tone-deaf Republicans have referred equally moot.

In other words, once the DOJ receives the referral to investigate Hillary for “lying under oath,” the Attorney General will reject the referral with a one sentence explanation anyone other than a moron would understand which means only a moron would have made the referral to begin with but, as we have seen, Congress is not without a shortage of them.

Time allowing, I will soon post a more detailed analysis as to why but take it to the bank despite what you’ll be hearing ad nauseam to the contrary from the right wing and by some ignorant reporters and pundits in MSM parroting the same, it just won’t be the case the facts are as follows:

One, Hillary did not lie about not sending or receiving classified email despite Comey saying she did receive or send about 100 emails that were classified among the 30,000+ emails she sent or received because she didn’t know at the time she sent or received them that they were classified. Comey says a reasonable person should have known that they were but he also says he didn’t find any evidence that she knew they were classified and sent or received them anyway (lack of intent).

Two, Hillary did not lie when she said she did not receive or send emails “marked” classified even though Comey initially said and repeated today that a “small portion” were so marked. She did not lie because Comey explained today that there were only 3 emails that were so marked out of the 30,000+ that she sent or received but they were not properly marked such that when asked, Comey acknowledged a reasonable person could have concluded they were not marked.

Even better for Hillary, 2 of those 3 emails were mistakenly marked as classified and they’re no longer classified, leaving only one marked classified but even that one is improperly marked therefore, with Comey’s explanation and DOS clarification yesterday, it’s true as Hillary has been saying and testified to that she did not send or receive emails marked classified.

Three, you’ll hear that Hillary “falsely testified under oath” that she returned all official emails to DOS when Comey says they found “thousands” of emails that were not returned. However, as Comey said in his stinging presser, he did not find any intentional withholding of these emails and offered there were a number of plausible explanations as to why these emails were not captured and returned.

Comey also found in a related finding that he did not find any criminal wrongdoing by Hillary or her lawyers deleting emails they deemed personal.

In sum, once again Republicans have found a way to overreach and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by hauling Comey to Congress to discredit him only for him to make an even stronger case he made the other day why he made the recommendation not to indict and in doing so, provided enough new information and facts that removed the sting of his excoriating presser.

No one could be happier about this than Democrats in general and Hillary in particular.

In a few days, this will be largely forgotten even though as some of us always say, never underestimate these hapless Republicans to outdo themselves in their bone-headedness elections are in still a few months away so be on look-out for their next overreaching but meanwhile enjoy the circus from their leader if he survives the coup currently being plotted against him.

Again, no one could be happier than Democrats in general and Hillary in particular given all this, especially given who her opponent is—yes, the bigoted clown who must and shall be defeated come November to return to wherever he came from.


Leave a comment

Posted by on July 7, 2016 in Law, Politics


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Trump Hijack of the Republican Party Is Complete


It’s a cliché already to say nobody saw this coming but the now all but assured nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican flag bearer in the upcoming general election against Hillary Clinton who’s also all but assured her nomination as the Democratic Party flag bearer raises the unlikeliest of prospects in American history and that’s Americans will have a liberal president come next year regardless of who between the two they vote for.

This is because Trump has been a life-long supporter of liberal causes via his supporting liberal Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, not to say anything about Hillary Clinton herself who she not only gave political contributions, they were close enough as friends he invited her and her husband former president Bill Clinton to his latest wedding.

In fact, Trump, who’s 69 and a lifelong New Yorker, registered for the first time in New York as a Republican in July 1987, only to dump the GOP more than a decade later for the Independence Party in October 1999, according to the New York City Board of Elections.

In August 2001, the man many have always dismissed as a joker switched parties and registered as a Democrat only to return the Republican Party eight years later, according to The Smoking Gun.

After only two years as a registered Republican, Trump left the Republican Party again but this time he marked a box that indicated, “I do not wish to enroll in a party,” according to the Smoking Gun.

The Smoking Gun reported that Mr. Trump returned to the Republican Party in April 2012 where he remained put through last year when declared his candidacy.

Since declaring his candidacy, Trump has made it known to all he doesn’t really care about the party at all and he certainly doesn’t care about its conservative ideology but his mission has been to simply hijack the party and use it as a vehicle to get elected president, something every rich person of his pedigree dreams about not for the sake of having the job and actually working to do what is required but to check the box of things dreamed of that have been done which for Trump must have been the box right above the box “Dump Marla, Marry New Younger Hottie.”

It’s precisely for this reason that most Republicans, and true conservatives in particular have been so against Trump and even starting a #NeverTrump movement which is more than a hashtag but an effort to stop Trump from becoming the Republican Party’s nominee, a task more daunting than ever now that Trump has knocked off the last remaining hope they had in Ted Cruz who dropped out last night after being walloped in Indiana, a state he had to win if the #NeverTrump movement were to have any luck.

To be sure, those behind this effort may as yet play their last card, including even recruiting someone to vie as a Republican rendering credence to the notion and now reality that Trump has, in fact, hijacked the Republican Party and the total take-over is all but a formality left for the party’s Convention in July.

That being the case, we will have in November this non-Republican sympathizer and supporter of liberal causes leading the Republican Party against Hillary Clinton, a lifelong Democrat and liberal leading to this intriguing outcome no one would have expected and that is, having a liberal in the White House regardless of which party wins the presidency.

However, given the dynamics of this year’s elections and, in particular, given Trump has managed to offend almost every major group other than white men without college education, a fete which has driven his negatives through the roof, the next occupier of the White House as president is in all likelihood going to be Hillary Clinton this despite her own high negatives and other flaws which pale in comparison to what many see in a Trump presidency—scary stuff.

So, congratulations Mr. Donald Trump for your success in hijacking the Republican Party but this could only come at the expense of the party losing in a landslide as it’s surely poised to and for that, Democrats thank you for handing over the presidency to them, something that would not have happened were a Republican nominated—any Republican except Ted Cruz who’s hated even more than you.

Now, the question that remains is, how low are you going to go in your efforts to destroy Hillary even as you go down as the most unelectable candidate the party you’ve hijacked has nominated since Barry Goldwater in 1964?

As Hillary herself has noted, she has experience dealing with men like you who have no boundaries in what they say or do so she’s ready and so are voters who care more about this country than your narcissistic quest for the presidency and will resoundingly reject your style and tactics.


Tags: , , , , ,

Hillary Is Winning Fair and Square And Is Headed To White House As Next and First Female President

Veteran journalist and political advisor Mr. Salim Lone has penned another article he posted on his Facebook that yet again contains a number of arguments regarding the ongoing Democratic primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders; arguments which are either false or contrary to overwhelming facts and developments that undercut each one of them.
In a response to my last blog in which I disposed of similar arguments put forth by Salim, he responded to me by basically saying even though he appreciates what I said in as far as it helped him in thinking through some of the points better, he nonetheless doesn’t think we’ll ever agree because of our “fundamental approaches” to these issues.
Salim, I am not sure I know exactly what you mean by that but, reading through your new post, I find it compelling to respond in saying you’ve once again penned a piece deserving an award for both overstating and understating facts.
While you continue to rightly admit that Sanders has virtually no chance of beating Hillary on the delegate count, you nonetheless continue to advance arguments which totally ignore why that’s the case so, let me put them forth for you and others who refuse to accept them as the reality they are:
First, Hillary is winning in states that represent the core coalition of voters a Democrat must have on their side to win in November, namely, states with a diverse population while Sanders is winning in states that are predominantly white–and some of them 90%+ white which needs no genius to figure that alone would be a reason to make him unelectable in November as a Democrat.
Second, Hillary is not only winning states that have the diverse core coalition of voters a Democrat must have to win in November, she’s winning them across the country and, come June 7, 2016 when she once again wins big in California, Hillary would have won in every state and region in the country she needs to win in November so your argument implying that she’s only strong in the South is simply false with a subset of that argument being Hillary cannot win in states that don’t have blacks, which is true but that’s true of any Democratic Party candidate–an argument that has a racist undertone by some but not all of those who advance it.
Third, because delegates are apportioned proportionally in all states in Democratic primaries, it’s irrelevant how many states one wins, what matters is how many delegates one gets with each victory. On the other hand and given this very fact, when one has a pledged delegate lead half-way through the contest as the one Hillary has, it’s impossible for anyone to catch-up with her, let alone overtake her which is doubly so in a two-person race and what a sweet fact for Hillary who experienced that in 2008 when she was unable to catch up with then Senator Barrack Obama who had an even lesser lead at this point than the one she has over Sanders.
I could go on to lay out more facts but these are the key facts that make Hillary nomination all but assured and her matching on to keep the White House in Democratic hands well within reach.
You’ve also made some false arguments that I think should be responded to:
It’s not true that the primary process underway in the Democratic Party is the product of a “broken political system.” Just because your candidate is not winning doesn’t make the system “broken” and if by “broken” you mean a system that has in place a mechanism to make sure a fringe candidate who cannot win in November does not secure the nomination, then your issue many not be the system at all but failure to grasp the fact parties are there to win not to experiment with insurgency.
You say CNN reported that the Hillary campaign said they will embark on “destroying” Sanders beginning tomorrow but, as a staunch Hillary supporter, I can tell you that’s a moronic assertion I seriously doubt came from her campaign and if it did, she should fire whoever the moron is who said it.
Hillary need not do anything different than she has been doing to win in the states that she must win and, quite frankly, I was impressed though not surprised that Sanders did not attack Hillary at all in his victory speech last night; what a civil gentleman he has been and I know Hillary is no dummy not to reciprocate but that doesn’t mean neither can’t be critical of the other in pointing out their policy differences or, occasionally, pointing out where surrogates have crossed the line into lying as Hillary did the other day though I wouldn’t have advised her to react as she did.
Finally, lost in all of your arguments–valid or otherwise is failure to acknowledge the simple fact even most in the media fail to do so as well and that is, Sanders is not a Democrat but Hillary is.
One would expect that a life-long Democrat is the nominee of the Democratic Party and not someone who has been absent from its battles most of his life–how noble is that?
That’s not to say Sanders has not here and there done things one can say are commendable and in tandem with Democratic Party principles, he has and deserves credit for them but there’s a reason he’s not a Democrat and instead calls himself a Democratic Socialist which, in my view, he might as well have declared himself a candidate for that party instead of the Democratic party and since it doesn’t exist, he might have as well registered one so, if he’s to vie as a Democrat, let him not express shock or insinuate something sinister that the Democratic Party “establishment” prefers one of their own.
Indeed, this is the single reason why Hillary has the support of 400+ Super-delegates (elected officials and former elected officials in the Democratic party with votes at the Democratic Party Convention) and Sanders only has 31.
Given the large delegate lead Hillary has and will maintain through the end of the primaries, these Super-delegates will have no say in her being the nominee as the voters would have spoken through the ballot that she should be the nominee therefore all this sudden talk about Sanders somehow erasing the lead and somehow turning this into an open convention is just that and more–talk and wishful thinking that has no basis in fact or reality or, more accurately, in the face of facts and reality.
In sum, get ready to say hello to Hillary the Democratic Party nominee and support her for the general election if you value the party and what it stands for compared to the Republican Party or stay home or support someone else; that’s your right.
For those who bet, the money is on Hillary both winning the Democratic Primary and going on to be elected as the next and first female president of the United States of America and what a victory that would be in this already circus of an election season.
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 6, 2016 in Politics, Uncategorized


Tags: , , ,

Putting All Salim Lone’s Arguments Against Hillary Clinton To Rest As To Her Strengths and Weaknesses

DEM 2016 Debate

Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, left, and Hillary Rodham Clinton talk before the CNN Democratic presidential debate Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/David Becker)

Veteran journalist and political advisor Mr. Salim Lone recently penned an article he posted on his Facebook I found quite interesting in that it contains a number of arguments regarding the ongoing Democratic primary involving Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders; arguments which were not surprising as both he and others have argued the same or similar arguments in the past but, what’s surprising is how persistent Lone remains with those arguments despite the overwhelming facts and developments that undercut each one of them.

Since I have been on leave from penning long essays, please indulge me as I take apart our good friend’s arguments; Salim

You say,

The only real question thrown up by last weekend’s astounding 82, 75 and 71 percent Sanders’ primary victories against front-runner Hillary Clinton was whether this meant that Hillary’s electability in the November Presidential election was in some sort of jeopardy, especially as a few days earlier she had also lost the two of the three primaries in Utah and Idaho by equally huge margins, while beating Bernie in the other primary by a small 14-point margin.

You get an award here for both overstating and understating facts; Sander’s wins last week by large margins were neither surprising nor “astounding” given the simple fact Hillary did not even bother campaigning in those states, and, more importantly, none of those states have the voting coalition for Democrats—they’re all caucus and predominantly white states the likes of which Sanders has been doing extremely well.

Someone reading your opening without knowing what happened before these latest round of voting would have no idea that Hillary walloped Sanders in the two previous contest, including Super Tuesday when her firewall was shown in its full light and the following contest when she did the same by sweeping all five states at play, including Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri, which she had to win to put away Sanders and his argument that she was vulnerable in the rush belt states—an exaggerated argument merely based on his fluke wining of Michigan, a state all polls were predicting Hillary would win big only to narrowly lose to Sanders.

You say,

But in one of the more extreme examples of the herd-like capacity of the US media to follow Establishment narratives, and as reflected in the NY Times article below, no reporting or discussion even hinted at whether these huge losses revealed some latent problems that Hillary might face in November election.

While it’s true the media earlier on did not pay much attention to Sanders’ insurgent campaign, all this changed after the Iowa and New Hampshire contests where one can make a good case the media was for all practical purposes and intent rooting for Sanders to do better not because they suddenly didn’t like Hillary but simply to make the race more interesting and they did.

Until Super Tuesday when as noted above, the firewall Hillary had erected to stop any Sanders momentum did its job with her impressive victories on Super Tuesday but did not completely knock out Sanders who was counting on recovering from the blows if he won in Ohio and Missouri as he and his campaign were hoping to win next.

Those hopes were dashed when Sanders lost both Ohio and Missouri and the rest of the states that had contests that week, namely, Illinois, North Carolina and Florida.

This particular sweeping win by Hillary removed any doubts that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee as she increased her delegate lead over Sanders to more than 300—a number it’s simply impossible for Sanders to chip away significantly, let alone erase and overtake her to be the nominee.

To put that in context, Obama’s lead was by 200 delegates at exactly that point in 2008 and Hillary could never catch up no matter what other victories she racked up after that same thing with Sanders he can never catch up with Hillary even if he wins all remaining states—unless he wins by 30-40 points in those states, something nobody serious thinks he can because he can’t.

Forget about Wisconsin and Wyoming which Sanders can win by a small margin and split the delegates as usual but, when Hillary wins big in New York on April 19—a state which even Sanders admits he has no chance of even coming close to winning, and when she also wins big a week later in Pennsylvania, then expect to see the “Establishment media” all but completely ignore Sanders as they focus fully on the more exciting Republican primary reality TV show.

You say,

Instead the ENTIRE media coverage focused exclusively on asserting, and repeating ad nauseam, that these gargantuan rejections of Hillary in five successive contests in important states did not mean that Sanders now stood a better chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

Again, these victories by Sanders in states he was expected to win as he did were not “gargantuan rejections of Hillary”—not by any objective measure; in fact, in none of those states is a Democrat expected to win in November so let’s put those victories in the column they belong and that is, “Life Support” so Sanders could live to fight another day, which is on April 19, 2016 when as noted above, Hillary will finally put him away.

Neither did these victories suddenly make the case to all Democrats that Sanders is a better candidate than Hillary in the general election; the converse of that assessment remains true despite those wins and the media so reporting is not on orders of the “establishment” but merely reporting the facts as they should.

You say,

The media also highlighted that these states demographics played to Bernie’s strengths and that in any case the victories were expected. When Hillary wins expected primaries, that has never prevented a fawning media from hailing these as important triumphs.

There’s a simple reason why Hillary winning big in the states she has is a big deal and why Sanders winning big in the states he has is not a big deal and neither case does that have to do with the candidates individually but has everything to do with the party as a whole.

Without going into the weeds with this let’s just say Hillary is winning states which have voters that comprise the core of the Democratic Party while Sanders is not.

Put another way, were Sanders to put together even a small string of victories in these diverse states going for Hillary, the narrative would change and you’ll see the media bring up drums and start singing on the streets cheering him on but that’s not happening and will not happen given what’s obvious as has been proven thus far and that is, Hillary has a strong-hold on these important core Democratic voters, namely, minorities, older voters and women.

You say,

The mainstream media’s line of reporting would have been justified if many people thought that there was a serious chance of Bernie actually winning the Democratic nomination, but not even many staunch supporters, including myself, think there is any serious possibility of that happening, even though we wish it could!

If you only posted this and said no more, you would not have a response from yours truly other than saying he’s in agreement.

You say,

The purpose of the narrow media narrative therefore was to squelch any notion that these huge losses might portend serious difficulties for Hillary in the November race against Trump or whoever. No doubt must be planted about Hillary’s unstoppable march to the Presidency!

Given it’s not the case that these were “huge losses” in the larger picture and particularly given Hillary did not even bother to campaign in those states, it therefore follows her not winning those states has no implication over her winning prospects in November.

You say,

Hillary has a significant lead in delegates from the early rounds, since she has won many primaries in the South, which is America’s most conservative region and from where Bill Clinton hails. But the scale of her recent losses point to the problems that will lurk for her in the presidential election. In the last 6 primaries, Bernie has won twice as many delegates as Hillary, 128 to 65.

Again, you’re overstating the significance of Sanders wins in the latest contests you can’t ignore the fact Hillary has won not only the Southern states she had to win, she has also won in Ohio, Missouri and Florida none of which are conservative states but that’s not all; when it’s all said and done, she would have won every state Democrats must win to win in November.

You say,

Outside the South, Bernie has in fact decisively won 14 primaries, while she has won only three, Nevada, Ohio and Arizona, decisively. In 4 others, she has won only by razor-thin margins – Missouri, Massachusetts, Iowa and Illinois, by 0, 1, 2 and 3 delegates respectively. So outside the South, Sanders has won 14 primaries and to her 7.

As noted above, this is a distinction without a difference when the question is who between Hillary and Sanders is better placed to win in November against whoever emerges as the wounded Republican nominee.

You say,

In the Wisconsin primary next Tuesday, Hillary’s 40-point lead has shrunk to 4 points.

Nothing wrong with that; Sanders—according to polls—came back from far behind and narrowly over Hillary in Michigan gaining steam but that took him nowhere. He can win Wisconsin and the outcome won’t be any better given the massive delegate lead Hillary has over him—a fact you yourself have acknowledged above.

You say,

She has been bleeding support outside the South to Bernie for months, even though a year ago most Americans had never heard of Bernie Sanders.

Besides there being no evidence of Hillary “bleeding support in the South to Bernie for months” it’s never clear why people who make this argument that Sanders was an unknown before he entered the Democratic primary it undercuts their other argument that he’s matched better one-on-one with any of the potential Republicans in November.

Let’s just say by the time any of those candidates are half-way done in “introducing” Sanders to America, even the staunchest of his supporters wouldn’t recognize him and some of those now saying they like him may actually go to the polls to vote against him!

That’s precisely the reason why Hillary has a staggering lead in pledged delegates and as icing on the cake, he only has 31 Super Delegates supporting him while Hillary has 469 and please let nobody buy the phony argument that the Super Delegates system is “rigged” in favor of Hillary; it’s not, rather, that’s a system in place for the party to avoid precisely what’s going on in the Republican Party—which is fully and wholly consistent with all applicable democratic principles on suffrage.

You say,

Hillary’s problem is her unfavorable ratings among voters, which is why she lost to the virtually unknown African American Barrack Obama in 2008, when she was presumed to be a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination.

False. Hillary’s favorability ratings were consistently above 50% throughout the 2008 primary season and only fell below that (49%) in June when she conceded to Obama—a phenomenon which could be the case for Sanders as well if continues to challenge Hillary after it’s unarguably clear he cannot overtake Hillary which will be the case after the next round of voting.

Obama’s victory over Hillary in the 2008 primary had nothing to do with her favorability ratings neither did his win later on in November had much to do with merely the fact he’s half-white.

Obama’s victory had a lot to do with putting together a shrewd campaign that took advantage of a number of favorable dispositions in a political climate where it was time to elect the first black president as part of that disposition Hillary is following the same playbook with minor modifications to account for the unpredictable Clown she’s likely to face in November or whoever the divided Republicans put forth as their wounded nominee.

You say,

All this shows how vulnerable Hillary will be as the Democratic candidate in November.

No it doesn’t.

You say,

Her source of strength among the Democratic base at the moment is the South, but the Southern states are heavily Republican and Democrats have trouble winning many of them.

False; Hillary’s source of strength are the core coalition of the Democratic Party: Minorities (especially Blacks and Hispanics, Older Voters and Women add that a good doze of non-angry white men and a good chunk of Millenials she’s likely to get, anyway, she’s good to go to the White House as the next and first female president of these United States of America.

You say,

So in November, if she beats Bernie for the nomination, she will need very heavy turn outs in the non-Southern states, which at the moment have been voting for Sanders more than for her.

Again; not true! Hillary has been winning in all regions and, even more importantly, of the 7 swing states—which have all voted, Sanders has won in only two (New Hampshire and Colorado) while Hillary has won the rest (Ohio, Nevada, Virginia and Florida) and, as noted above, she wins New York and Pennsylvania you’ll see even Sanders himself change the tone of his campaign to be more about the message candidate he has been and in time concede the nomination to Hillary and start working together with all other good Democrats in uniting the party and focusing their energy on what’s even more important and that is, defeating whoever the Republicans put forth as their wounded nominee come November.

This is potentially a source of grave danger to her and the Democratic party, as the most energised grass roots Democratic group active in the election, the young liberal voters, who, as Amy Chozick of the NY Times wrote, “are not only flocking to Sanders but are turned off by Hillary’s financial views and practices.”

There’s no doubt Sanders has an enthusiastic following, especially the younger voters akin to that on the Trump camp but surveys clearly show only a small fraction of Sanders followers will not vote for Hillary in November, which is not good but it’s nothing unlike what has happened before in both parties and whoever is the nominee of either party knows Job No. 1 after nomination, is uniting the party and bringing those who did not support them on board.

Let me not write with glee what I think the prospects for a united party are for Republicans given the surreal primary they’re going through but any Democrat can sigh a sigh of relief we have nothing of the kind going on in our camp and it’ll be—as one prominent newspaper put it, idiotic for Democrats not to rally behind their nominee and hold on to the White House, if not regain control of the Senate and more.

You say,

Democrats should be seriously considering such issues, which are well known, and yet the pliant, pro-Establishment Democratic media, heavily pro-Clinton and an equally strongly anti-Sanders, has yet to touch on this fundamental issues, even though it spends hours or pages each days talking about every aspect of the election.

Your entire premise is false so is your conclusion for if Sanders were to win in any of the key states that matter to Democrats such as Virginia or Florida or New York next week for that matter, you’ll see the same media turn on Hillary as you have never seen and trump that up to no end fact is, he’s not winning those states and cannot and therefore the media is simply reporting that fact you cannot fault them for it, nor should you tag them with these labels that don’t stand to even simple scrutiny as to their coverage of Hillary and Sanders.

The essence of the problem is how will Hillary and the Democratic party woo the vast and passionate Sanders’ following which is turned off by both Clinton and the Democratic establishment’s practices.

This is the same question that was asked of Hillary supporters in 2008 when many of them were disillusioned and even mad that then some unknown Senator was doing so well against Hillary and one group led by a well-known socialite went on to form PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) to actively campaign against Obama, which they did and we all know what happened.

As noted above, once Hillary is nominated, there will be enough time to unite the party behind her and those Democrats and others who value and support what the party stands for as opposed to what the Republican Party stands for would rally behind her and the rest will be history.

This is not something that would happen in a vacuum; rather, starting from Hillary herself, the President and the rest of us who are Democrats or Independents leaning Democratic will have to do our part as we are and lay down a red carpet to welcome disenchanted Republicans and, again, the rest will be history.

These Sanders foot soldiers are essential to a Democratic victory.

Agreed but in the same vein all core constituencies of the Democratic Party are.

You say,

At the moment, with both Trump and Cruz self-destructing, all polls show that both Sanders and Hillary will beat either of them in November – but Sanders wins by much bigger margins.

I have addressed this above but, to repeat, Sanders doing as good as he is vz these Republicans is simply a function of the fact he has not been the subject of that staple of all politics, negative attacks which, take my word for it, were he to be the nominee, he would be lucky if he carries his own state of Vermont.

You say,

He also comfortably beats the third Republican candidate, John Kasich, but Hillary loses to him.

Not big deal here; Kasich has as much chance of being the Republican nominee as you and I and, even if he were and somehow was elected president, Independents like yours truly would not mind at all as we know on most of the things that matter to us, he will do the right thing.

Conversely, were the Clown or Cruz to be nominated and somehow a majority of voters lost their minds and voted either of them to the presidency, some of us who have been struggling as to whether to return home permanently or stay here will have our decision made that much easier as we start packing.

Of course, we’ll be confronted with the same question upon arrival in Kenya or soon thereafter as to whether or not to pack and leave again, depending on whether our candidate of choice is the winner in our own presidential election!

Such is life; at least as we know it now.



Posted by on March 31, 2016 in Politics, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , ,