The UnReported Story of Hillary's Strength

Hillary Clinton knows better than anyone else that four months is an eternity in politics. She also probably knows that she's ahead. Polling shows her crushing Donald Trump in Iowa of all places, a state that has never really warmed to her like some others. But that's not all:

According to Ballotpedia's battleground poll, Clinton leads Trump:

• 51% to 37% in Florida
• 45% to 41% in Iowa
• 50% to 33% in Michigan
• 48% to 38% in North Carolina
• 46% to 37% in Ohio
• 49% to 35% in Pennsylvania
• 45% to 38% in Virginia

Her leads held at nearly the same margins when Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson was included in the poll. And Clinton led Trump 48% to 37% when all states were factored together. With Johnson included, Clinton led Trump 44% to 34%, with Johnson at 13%.

Yes, Quinnipiac did show the race closer, but the ABC/Washington Post and the NBC/Wall Street Journal Polls both found her comfortably ahead.

Hillary Clinton's common ground in all the polls is that she leads. She hasn't trailed in a national poll in well past a month now. She doesn't trail in any swing-state polls either. Some show the race closer, some show it further apart, none of them show Trump ahead. Maybe this is about Trump's relative weakness. Maybe it's all about Clinton's campaign. Either way- she's strong right now. The argument that Democrats couldn't nominate her because she'd be sure to lose is basically dead. While she's not a lock to win at this time, FiveThirtyEight sets her odds at 79.2%. What should be more telling is that they are setting current state margins for South Carolina, Mississippi, and Kansas inside of 5% for Trump. That is really not good for him.

Obviously you won't read about how Hillary might win a blowout victory. If it's over now, why would anyone care about future coverage, which hurts the media outlets. They won't spite themselves to report the facts, so you'll just have to wait until November 8th to hear about it.

The Over-Hyped, Faux Story of Pennsylvania's Competitiveness

In 2000, Tom Ridge refused to believe Al Gore had won Pennsylvania. In 2004, George W. Bush ran the same campaign model that won him Ohio and Florida, but John Kerry carried Pennsylvania. In 2008, John McCain tried to resurrect himself as the floor fell in by doing so in Western Pennsylvania. Mitt Romney seemed to have the good sense in 2012 to get the point, but Republicans are saying it again- Donald Trump can win Pennsylvania. They even cite the registration changes above. This will end up like the others.

Pennsylvania is won in Philadelphia's suburbs. Yes, the Western part of the state has trended Republican in recent years, but the population there has dropped. Running a "guns and God" appeal to those voters out there does not win the state for a Republican, in fact it hurts them worse in the Philadelphia region, where people are still moving. While the map above should not make a Democrat feel "good" about things, it's worth noting that most of the registration change is just "Reagan Democrats" actually registering as Republicans, like they vote. It's not new registrants switching. Those people were already in many cases voting Republican. There's no beef in this argument.

In short, Pennsylvania will be competitive, maybe even close, as it always is. One of these days, maybe the Republicans will win it, but if that happens, they probably already won the election. It's worth noting though that elections have actually become more lopsidedly Democratic at the state level. In 2002, Governor Rendell won a large victory. In 2004, Democrats won two out of three state row offices and the Presidential race, only losing for Senate and Attorney General. In 2006, Governor Rendell and Casey won blowouts for Governor and Senator. In 2008, President Obama won a blowout and the Democrats won two out of three row offices. In 2012, President Obama and Senator Casey won fairly comfortable wins, and the Democrats swept the row offices. In 2014, Governor Wolf won easily. In 2015, in a relatively new outcome for off-years, Democrats swept all the state judicial races handily. The only exception in which Republicans did well in Pennsylvania statewides recently was 2010, which was a year they did well everywhere. In other words, the PA GOP hasn't done so well in recent years. Donald Trump is not a particularly strong candidate according to polls, and he doesn't have a really strong campaign. In other words, I don't see him flipping Pennsylvania right now. I don't see why people are giving this story legs.

Check back in November.

Donald Trump Cannot Win the Election, Hillary Can Only Lose It

What one calls arrogance, can simply be stated truth. In American national elections, at this point in our history, the country leans to the left. Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six elections. They haven't finished below 48% in any of them since 1992. Republicans increasingly rely on an electorate that is male, older, and whiter than the country on the whole, which leaves them with less wiggle room to win. Republicans can win the election, but it is less likely than not. In other words, as of 2016, Presidential elections lean towards the Democrats, in generic terms.

So, let me state my point- Donald Trump cannot "win" the election. I'm not saying he won't be the victor on November 8th, I'm saying he will only be so if Hillary "loses" the election for herself. I completely discount the theory that Trump will pull out such a massive bigot vote as to win, unless you convince me that Hillary wildly underperforms President Obama. Is that possible? Sure is. Probable? Your guess is as good as mine.

A few points here:

1. Hillary hasn't basically been ahead since the end of the primaries. She has certainly been ahead since her blistering speech attacking Trump on foreign policy. The size of her lead varies from a point or two to double-digits. The point is that the most common outcome right now in the polls is she is ahead.
2. There are even more state-level polls than national ones, because there are 50 states. She does not lead every single swing-state poll- but she leads the solid majority of them. Right now, Trump does not hold a consistent lead in a single state that President Obama won. Not one. There is time obviously for that to change, but as is, expect her to win over 300 electoral votes.
3. Donald Trump really should not do any better amongst any non-white group than Mitt Romney did. Not African-Americans, not Hispanics, not Jewish-Americans, not Asian-Americans, not LGBT people. His "Make America Great Again" line has no real appeal to people who have traditionally been marginalized. Given that Trump has gone out of his way to insult Hispanics, Muslims, women, and lots of other groups in this campaign, I don't think he has a way to really improve on Romney's numbers here.
4. The idea that Trump will win because he will turn out droves of non-traditional white voters, or that Democrats are suddenly switching sides to vote for him, is basically all bunk. The white "lazy voter" theory has been run before, and did win- most recently in 2004- but President Obama has shown that strategy to be inadequate in winning a national election. Don't forget, Mitt Romney's margin amongst white voters in 2012 was virtually identical or better to President George H.W. Bush's 1988 margin- which resulted in a blowout win- but Romney lost. It's also worth noting that Romney saw huge white-Democrat crossover in the "Rust Belt" states- but he lost them. 
5. The idea that a catastrophic world event, such as a terrorist attack, could help Trump, doesn't seem to be in the cards. The Orlando shooting seemed to help Clinton, not Trump, in the polls. She consistently wins on national security questions. I think this issue is inverted on what we're used to.

So, with that in mind, Donald Trump cannot win the 2016 election. He may be the victor though. What do I mean? Hillary Clinton can lose the election. How?

1. Hillary can make a mistake. What is that mistake? If I knew, I'd stop her from doing it. She could say something damning though, a gaffe that ends the race. Is it likely? No. Possible? It always is, for any candidate.
2. The Bernie wing of the party could become enraged and not back her. By my math, we're only really talking about two or three million voters who are up for grabs, after accounting for those on board and those who will never be, but that's a point or two in the polls. How the next three weeks heading into Philly go is critical, but they should certainly be seen as working for his support in the lead up to the convention.
3. Turnout, turnout, turnout. A lame Vice-Presidential nominee, too hard of a rush to the center, or an insufficient outreach campaign to the varying groups in the Democratic coalition could end up leading to Hillary underperforming President Obama sufficiently. That could cost her.
4. The economy. I'm less worried about terrorism than a market crash in the closing months of this race. Events like Brexit are beyond an American President's control, and can lead to a global slowdown. Something like this could dampen enthusiasm for the sitting President, and flip even the small sliver of the electorate that is up for grabs.

One other thing you should note- I do believe Republicans will show up for Trump at levels rivaling or even slightly exceeding Mitt Romney. I do believe his hardcore base will vote. I do not believe the "Trump coalition" would be enough to win though, unless Hillary Clinton proves to be considerably weaker than President Obama was. Remember, his cushion was 63 electoral votes, while Romney fell 65 electoral votes short. Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan all going to Trump would not win him the election alone, and he will have to hang onto Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia, all of which aren't easy.

What I am saying is that Hillary Clinton should win the 2016 election and be the 45th President. What I am saying is that her built-in advantages, and Trump's weaknesses as a candidate make that clear. What I am saying is that I don't fear Trump's strengths as a candidate. What I am saying is that her substantial financial advantage is important. Even a three or four point win, which the polls basically suggest she should get to right now, equates to a Democratic win with over 300 electoral votes. Clinton should win a relative electoral landslide, at least under the terms of political landslides in America after the Cold War.

I'm not saying Clinton will absolutely win though. I am afraid of the left eating itself alive in disputes about ideology and purity. I am afraid of complacency amongst an electorate that has been "fat and happy" with our incumbent President. I am worried about external market pressures souring Americans on the Obama era. More so than anything though, i'm nervous about Democrats beating themselves. Donald Trump does not scare me at all. Progressives, liberals, Democrats, or whatever else you want to call us, killing ourselves is what worries me. Our inability to ever be happy with our success and strength is what worries me. To me, this election is an "in-house" fight.

Terminology Won't Beat ISIS

Hillary Clinton did call it "Radical Islamic Terrorism." President Obama did not. Donald Trump insists failure to call it that should be a disqualifier. To listen to this arguing about a term, you would think the term was actually a substitute for a strategy to handle ISIS. Of course, that's laughable- ISIS won't disband just because the President does or does not call them "radical Islamic terrorists." It doesn't work that way.

To be clear here, Donald Trump would not know the first thing about how to handle ISIS if he were President. He has zero experience in dealing with terrorism, and his talk of being tough with them would simply create more ISIS. Calling them "radical Islamic terrorists" won't do anything either, at least if your goal is to actually defeat them. In fact, it will feed into their narrative- that this is a war between Islam and America.

About the only net effect of the term that I can think of is to divide us here at home. To make non-Muslims view Muslim-Americans as an "other," as someone different, as an enemy within. It will serve Trump's purpose of dividing Americans and bringing the most ignorant ones to his side of the argument. It won't help us defeat ISIS though, no matter how hard he says it. If that worked, we would have been saying "radical Christian terrorists" for a long time in America.

Hillary Folks- Stop Telling Bernie People to "Unite"

Eight years ago this month, Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race for President, conceding the nomination to then-Senator Barack Obama. During that campaign, I had worked for her, and at that time I was very, very disappointed. It took me a little time to accept the result and move on. I did, and I voted for President Obama, and I'm proud that I did. I can't lie and say it was easy though.

Right now, supporters of Bernie Sanders are in a similar situation. Hillary is about to be nominated in July's convention in Philadelphia. Bernie Sanders, after a long and hard fought campaign, is going to come up a little short of victory. His supporters, some of whom have put their heart and soul into the race, are now forced to come to grips with that, and make their decision about how to move forward. It's tough. I wasn't with them during this campaign, but I feel their pain. You don't come around over night, despite pledges to do so every time.

I have complete and total faith in most of the Sanders supporters. Are there some "Bernie or Bust" people who can't be reached? Sure, and I have made my opinions clear about them in the recent past. The overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters are smart and decent people, with whom I share many values- a commitment to combatting climate change, a living wage for an honest day's work, support for public education, a desire to see universal health care, a belief in common-sense gun laws, and many more progressive positions. We may not agree on the details to do it, but we share the goals. I believe that 85-90% of the Sanders supporters are good, decent people who will come to the responsible decision about moving forward in this Presidential race, in part because of our shared values, and in part because of Donald Trump.

The Sanders supporters don't need my advice on what to do, they're adults and can figure out what's right for them. They also don't need me to tell them "it's time to unite." They should work on their time line and come to their own decision. The folks who need my advice are my fellow Clinton supporters. We need to win with some level of decency. Stop telling Sanders people what they need to do right now. It's June. They can think and come to their own conclusions. Do they need to accept the reality of the race at this time? Yes. Do they have to "get on board" with it today? No. Give them time.

I have faith that things will work their ways out. Give them time to do so. For my fellow Clinton supporters, put your energies into positive things, working hard to talk to voters and donate to the campaign. Don't put your energies into badgering Sanders volunteers into supporting us.

Closing the Book on the Democratic Primaries

When something's over, you move on from the emotions of it. As the 2016 Democratic Primary fight reaches it's ending, it is high time to move on from it. Does that mean all grievances are settled? No, probably not. It does mean you move on though.

I've made it clear throughout this process that I support Hillary Clinton. Yes, I'm with her. I support her the person, the candidate, her ideas, and her track record. I do not believe she is corrupt, ineffective, "Republican-lite" or anything else negative. I think Hillary Clinton will make a great President, and she is exactly who I want in office.

I also made it clear that I did not support Bernie Sanders in this process. Rather than going through everything, I will be succinct- I disagreed with some of his positions, I didn't like the tone of his campaign, and I did not share his want for a "revolution." I say this while sharing some of his goals- a higher minimum wage, a national health care system, fair trade deals, and others- to name a few. I just never came around to his details. I think he's a fine Senator and hope he continues to do good work there.

As this ends, there is a certain level of animus on my end that will slowly fade away. Sanders message became something that I not only disagreed with, but find to be dangerous. I am mad. Despite being insurmountably behind for months, he continued to batter our presumptive nominee as a tool of right-wing interests. He continued to cast aspersions on the validity of our nominating process, feeding people who did not understand the process and sometimes in it for the first time, with feelings that they were being robbed. He called great elected leaders, people doing wonderful things, "the establishment" in a condescending way. He and his campaign viciously smeared our DNC chair, state chairs, and party leaders. I found the tone and message, calling for a "political revolution" after eight years of President Obama, to be offensive. I found it to be an affront to all Democratic Party members. I found it to be ridiculous.

In short, I found his attacks on the Democratic Party to not only be false, but to completely turn me against him. In short order, I will be over it. In short order (like after Tuesday), I won't even mention these disputes again. As we close the books though on this process, it's time to move on. I agree with Bernie Sanders on many, many items of policy, and I actually agree with his supporters on many of our goals too. There's no sense kicking a dead horse any more, so I won't. It's time to start closing the books and moving on. If Senator Sanders wants to "take it to Philadelphia," he has earned that right, and it won't matter much in the end anyway. As far as I'm concerned, this is basically done.

In His Own Words...

History- Or Herstory- Has Been Made

As someone who worked on the 2008 campaign, there's a real satisfaction in watching Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination this time. I thought then she would be a great President, and I am more convinced now. I can't wait to elect her President.

One thing I had not thought much about before Tuesday night was the moment she won's historical value. This is the first woman nominee of a major political party (and NO, I don't count Jill Stein). This woman has done something we never have had happen before. It was actually fitting that she was alone on stage giving her victory speech, because frankly, she stands alone. She is special. She is historic.

I supported Hillary Clinton throughout this primary process, and I will support her this Fall. The future of the nation, and maybe even mankind, depends on defeating the know-nothing, racist, fraud that the Republican Party has nominated. Donald Trump has no place in a civilized society, certainly not as a President. Hillary Clinton on the other hand brings a wealth of experience, concrete plans, and compassion towards every day Americans. The choice of who to vote for this Fall is absolutely clear.

We must make history one more time.

Democratic Primary Update- Any Minute Now

This weekend, Hillary Clinton swept the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, putting her within a stone's throw of the Democratic nomination. The delegate count at this point:

• Hillary Clinton- 1,809 pledged delegates, 548 super-delegates, 2,357 total delegates (needs 26 more).
• Bernie Sanders- 1,520 pledged delegates, 46 super-delegates, 1,566 total delegates (trails by 791).

So here's what will happen next. Hillary Clinton will receive 26 delegates without any effort, so she will effectively become the presumptive nominee at 8 pm on Tuesday when New Jersey polls close (or possibly before if super-delegates endorse her). At 11 pm, when California polls close, Clinton will pass the 2,026 mark of pledged delegates, meaning she will have won the majority from the people.

Sanders can decide for himself if he stays in beyond Tuesday. His hope is that super-delegates will change their mind by the end of July in Philadelphia. That seems to be highly unlikely, since she will have won the majority of the votes and pledged delegates. With that said, Sanders has certainly earned the option of either having a roll call vote or making some form of deal with the presumptive nominee on speaking and on the platform.

Clinton-???: A Look at the VeepStakes

Once Hillary Clinton gets through Tuesday with 2,383 delegates and the primaries begin to fade into our rearview, the unofficial "race" for the Vice-Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party will begin in earnest. This is, of course, the job that everyone says they don't want (usually), but no one turns down, outside of extraordinary circumstances. Given Hillary's lead in the polls, sometimes very small, sometimes large, getting the nod from her to be VP is a good bet for any Democratic politician who harbors dreams of the White House for themselves. There are no shortage of potential picks there, both young and old. She will have plenty of interested parties.

In accordance with such, this is my current list of potentials, ranked in my preference order.

1. Elizabeth Warren- I've completely come on board with this one. Senator Warren has done a great job of being the voice of progressive economic policy inside the Senate, but the one thing she has done better than that is rip Donald Trump apart, and get under his thin-skin. She would electrify progressives and bring an authentic populist voice to the ticket. She would go a long way to unifying the party too. The cons on her are geography (Massachusetts), her being in her 60s, and the somewhat unfounded fear of putting two women on the ticket.
2. Cory Booker- If i'm rooting for anyone to get this nod, it's Senator Booker (I worked on his Senate coordinated campaign in NJ in 2014). He's young, he gives a great speech, he's refreshing, and now he's fairly qualified- having both run a large city and been a Senator for several years. Senator Booker being African-American and young would be a real shot in the arm to Democratic hopes of re-creating the "Obama coalition," and the guy has a genuinely great story to tell. The cons on him are geography (New Jersey and her native New York are neighbors) and perceived experience.
3. Julian Castro- Secretary Castro, like Senator Booker, is the future of our party. He's young, gives a great speech, is photogenic, and also now has a very impressive resume. He also was Mayor of a large city (San Antonio) and now serves in President Obama's cabinet (HUD Secretary). He also gives an impressive speech, and his Latino roots also would go a long way to helping Democrats re-create the "Obama coalition." He's another guy with a great personal story too. The cons on him are geography (we're not going to win his native Texas) and perceived experience. 
4. Al Franken- Senator Franken would make this the most colorful election in recent memory. The Minnesota progressive is well liked amongst his Senate peers, and has spent most of his political career "toning it down," but you know that if Donald Trump decides to make this a fire fight, Senator Franken can throw one-liners better than anyone in politics. He's funny, likable, and acceptable to progressives. He also could be a real lift in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. His cons are that he's white, male, and straight. 
5. Thomas Perez- The Labor Secretary has quietly crept up everyone's boards, and should get a good, long look for this job. Perez is a Latino, which obviously helps on that "Obama coalition" front, but he is also loved by organized labor, who will be key in fighting back against the "Trump coalition." Perez's cons are lower name recognition (comparable to the first four), geography (Maryland), and lack of electoral experience.
6. Sherrod Brown- The Ohio Senator checks off many boxes. For one, he's a real populist, and would excite progressives. Two, he represents the swing-state of swing-states. Three he's qualified. He'd play well in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The cons on him are that he's white, male, and straight. 
7. Tim Kaine- The Virginia Senator has an impressive resume. He's been Governor and Lt. Governor of Virginia. He's been U.S. Senator. He has an impressive civil rights resumes. He represents a huge swing-state. He would seem to be perfect. The cons on him are his demographics- white, male, and straight- and that he is not perceived as overly "exciting."
8. Bernie Sanders- While this seems to be a very, very unlikely pick, I put him here, in part because even as a solidly Clinton partisan, I could welcome him with open arms. Obviously he'd unify the party. Obviously his support groups, especially youth, would be excited. Obviously he'd please progressives. The cons are his demographics- white, male, straight, and old- and the obviously uncomfortable union of two primary rivals who eventually got nasty with each other.
9. Xavier Becerra- Congressman Becerra has represented downtown Los Angeles in the U.S. House for over 20 years. He's in the leadership there. He's Latino. He can throw a "zinger" with the best of them. He would set Trump over the edge. The cons on him are geography (we're going to win California), his long legislative record, and his relative lack of name recognition.
10. Hilda Solis- The current Los Angeles County Supervisor has served as U.S. Labor Secretary and Congresswoman as well. She has an impressive resume, is a Latina, and has a solidly pro-labor background. I keep her on this list because she would be another real progressive and populist. The cons on her are geography (California), long legislative record, and perceptions about her time at Labor.

Now, as you'll all see, I did not call being a Senator a "con." I don't see it as such. You'll also see that later in this list, I picked people not rumored in the news, which I did because I wanted some "outside the box" names here. If you asked me to guess though, one of the first seven will end up as the pick. 

Uniting the Party Comes Down to a Small Pocket of People

While we've all been battling over the Hillary-Bernie fight, a funny thing has happened- the primaries have reached their ending. Hillary Clinton will cross 2,383 delegates on June 7th when the polls close in New Jersey, and will at that point be the presumptive nominee. At that point, Bernie can either drop out or simply continue to Philadelphia without really any chance at winning, but that will be his call. She will begin searching for a VP, forming a transition team, and doing all the things that presumptive nominees do. Another part of this will begin to happen though- unification. That will essentially fall on Hillary and Bernie, more so than anyone else, to decide if they are on the same team or not.

Bernie will probably have to make the first choice- does he take this fight to a roll-call vote, or does he want a primetime speaking opportunity Monday or Tuesday. Given that the vote is Wednesday, he will have to make up his mind before the convention about what he intends to do. Then the real fun starts. Is he considered for VP? What parts of the platform does he get influence over? What lasting impression will he get to leave on this race? These are tough questions.

In the end though, it is Hillary Clinton who will need the Sanders supporters, as every nominee needs their rival's backers. Bernie Sanders will end the primary season in the neighborhood of 13 million votes strong, a large chunk by any measure. A very typical two-thirds of them say they will vote for Clinton now, meaning about 8.5 million are in her column. I would venture a guess that about ten percent of them will never vote for her, about 1.3 million. That 9.8 million still leaves 3.2 million out there. I suspect that once the nomination fight ends, a few more people will trickle into her column, giving her about 75% of them, or 9.7 million. Given those that she can't get, that leaves about two million people.

Now, maybe you think two million votes matters, maybe you don't. I tend to think it does. It doesn't to the point of bending over backwards to give Sanders anything and everything he would ever want, but it does to the point that the Clinton campaign should try to give him a dignified and celebratory exit. A nod to his supporters on the Vice-Presidential choice (to be read: a progressive), integrating some of his policy plans, a prime-time speaking spot, and perhaps a nod to him that as President she will join him on some major policy position that he tries to pass in the Senate, would all make sense. While this race has turned bitter, Bernie has done more than well enough to earn a strong consolation package for his campaign. Hopefully Hillary can bring herself there.

#ImWithHer: Hillary Tells it How it is on Donald Trump

Was it her best speech yet? It felt like Hillary Clinton was finally freed up to be herself. She didn't seem like she was splitting hairs, or like she was uncomfortable, or that she had any apprehension. Hillary simply crushed Donald Trump with point after point, using his many blunders, and doing it in a nationalistic manner. It was as good of a performance as I have ever seen her give as a political candidate. She was great.

She was also honest. Donald Trump has no idea how to lead American foreign policy. He would fight with allies and embrace enemies, he would say one thing, then try to say he said the opposite. He offers no stability, no capability, no intellectual capacity at all. She crushed him for supporting nuclear proliferation, she smacked him for praising dictators like Kim Jong-Un. She scolded him for proposing giving ISIS a safe-haven in Syria. She chided him for saying he would not support Israel. She mocked him for picking fights with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Mayors of London and Paris, the Pope, and others. She called him out for saying NATO has no current application. She even pointed out his inconsistencies on Iraq, Libya, and all sorts of other foreign policy issues. On every point, she literally used his words.

This is the candidate we are all hoping for. This is the leader America needs. I'm very, very happy she went out and gave this speech. This is how she will be our next President.

I Don't Care if You're "Bernie or Bust"

I actually found this gem on Facebook. I think they can't spell.

It's the end of another long, drawn-out Democratic nominating process. Feelings are hurt. People are tired of it. The Presidential general election looms, and both sides feel like they deserve the nomination. One side is clearly ahead, and so the other wants the super-delegates to tilt things their way. Stupid things are being said all over. We've all seen this before, provided we were alive in 2008. It shouldn't be shocking to us.

Bernie Sanders is behind and will lose the nomination. Some of his supporters are very angry about that, and are saying it's "Bernie or Bust." They've taken to calling Hillary Clinton names like "Hitlery" or "Hiliary" and other ridiculous, childish names. They want to tell us repeatedly they will never back her. They want us to know they are serious. I have a message for them- we hear you, and we believe you. We just don't care.

Let's start with the obvious- there is always a "or bust" crowd at this stage in the game. Remember the PUMA's? They made a lot of noise, got no concessions at all, and ended up irrelevant. The psychology of any "or bust" crowd is that the threat of them not being on board for the nominee is so dangerous to the party and the nominee that the party will capitulate and give them what they want. It's essentially trying to over-rule majorities by being louder. No one is going to give in to that. We aren't a party run by any group of childish people on the losing side, whether it was 2008 or 2016.

Let's also address the threat of what you are saying as a "buster." You are under the impression that your are a quantifiable enough group that we will lose because of you. It's possible, but how probable it is could be debatable. Bernie has received about 10.5 million votes so far. I'm going to give him another 2.5 million (thanks to California for a chunk of that), for math's purposes. Right now, Sanders supporters are behaving similarly to Clinton's backers in 2008, in that about a third of them are saying they will not back Hillary. Besides the fact that most of them did come around in 2008, if we assume these numbers hold, Bernie would cost Hillary about 4.33 million votes. If Bernie's backers end up mostly behaving like Hillary's did in 2008, he'd cost her about 2 million votes. The first number would turn the Presidential election into a very close affair, though Clinton would still have a chance to win. The second number would probably just cost her some of the strength of her mandate. Yes, these votes matter, and Democrats are better off with them, than without them. No, even at the maximum end, they don't make it impossible for her to win.

Then there's the idea that somehow or other this is "teaching the Democrats a lesson," and that it would open the door to a more progressive party in the future. First, the only way a boycott of Hillary gets anyone's attention is if she loses as a result, and even then, I doubt that the reaction of Hillary supporters and "establishment" Democrats would be to want to welcome you into the party. Second, historically a Democratic loss has lead to a more centrist Democratic Party. Sure, we got Dukakis, McGovern, and Stephenson as nominees after Democratic defeats, but in each case the next Democrat to win was a more "mainstream" political figure- Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton. Even Barack Obama comes more out of the mainstream of American political discourse, even though he was the response to the ultra-conservative Bush Presidency. In short, a boycott doesn't get anyone's attention, and a Clinton loss doesn't mean we're going to have a nominee in 2020 that is quoting from Marx. Generally speaking in American politics, you only can move governing leaders from being inside the tent, as that's where the conversations happen. Establishing that you aren't a part of the party probably means the party doesn't care about you anymore.

In short, I'm skeptical that the "Bernie or Bust" movement is the force it's acting like it is, and even if it is, I don't think it's going about this in a constructive manner, for themselves. LGBT activists brought President Obama around by being inside of his tent, and he ended up being the best President they've ever had for their interest group issues. Womens' groups didn't take their ball and go home when Hillary lost in 2008, they supported President Obama and got Lilly Ledbetter right out the gate. The Occupy Movement on the other hand has largely stayed away from electoral politics, and we have yet to see the kind of massive income inequality-fixing legislation they want. There's a lesson to be learned here.

Beyond this though, I really don't care if you're "Bernie or Bust." I am not taking you as being especially "principled" for being that, I'm actually taking you as a less-serious actor. This crowd seems to want to tell us all the time about how committed they are to not backing Secretary Clinton, and I actually believe some of the folks on the internet all day saying so. I just don't care. I voted for Hillary, and I want her to be the nominee. You can say all day that you think she's corrupt, an "oligarch," or any other negative things you would like, I just don't agree with them. Neither do most of her voters. Neither do her delegates to the convention. Here's the kicker though- neither do the super-delegates. This line of attack hasn't worked, and we're not all going to wake up on July 25th and see your light. I'm sorry, but no. If you want to be "Bernie or Bust," so be it, that is your right. You can vote your conscience, I'm not going to think any differently about you for it (I'm already skeptical of you just for saying you'd do this). I just don't want to hear it anymore. Take that noise elsewhere. For all the reasons above, I don't care. We're not going to hand the nomination that Hillary won over to the Bernie campaign. It's just not how this is going down.

Sorry, not sorry.

The Democratic Nomination Update- California Doesn't Matter

A week from tonight is the California Primary- or as Senator Sanders calls it, "the whole enchilada." While that sentiment might make sense if you watch cable news, the truth is that California's winner or loser won't matter much. As a matter of fact, if Senator Sanders doesn't exceed expectations by a lot in New Jersey, she will probably clinch the presumptive nomination before voting closes in California.

To the current tally:

• Hillary Clinton- 1,769 pledged delegates, 543 unpledged delegates, 2,312 TOTAL DELEGATES
• Bernie Sanders- 1,501 pledged delegates, 44 unpledged delegates, 1,545 TOTAL DELEGATES

To win the nomination, 2,383 total delegates are needed. To win the majority of the pledged delegates, 2,026 are needed. Remaining on the map are:

• Virgin Islands- June 4th- 7 pledged delegates, 5 unpledged
• Puerto Rico- June 5th- 60 pledged delegates, 7 unpledged
• New Jersey- June 7th- 126 pledged delegates, 16 unpledged
• North Dakota- June 7th- 18 pledged delegates, 5 unpledged
• South Dakota- June 7th- 20 pledged delegates, 5 unpledged
• New Mexico- June 7th- 34 pledged delegates, 9 unpledged
• Montana- June 7th- 21 pledged delegates, 6 unpledged
• California- June 7th- 475 pledged delegates, 71 unpledged
• Washington, DC- June 14th- 20 pledged delegates, 25 unpledged

There are a remaining 781 pledged delegates. Clinton needs 257 more delegates to win the majority of the pledged delegates, making her the choice of the voters, which is 32.9% of the vote. Given that New Jersey polling puts her way ahead, and California gives her a tiny lead, and proportional in their delegates,  she is going to top that easily. That's even conceding that she doesn't blow him out in California. If she gets half of those delegates from those two states (300), and just 30 percent of all the others- a huge, huge stretch of the imagination- she ends up with 360 delegates, or 103 more than she needs. I see this as virtually her floor. In other words, you can expect her to walk away with 2,129 total pledged delegates- minimally. 

That number puts her narrowly shy, 254 delegates, of the nomination. Fortunately for her, she already has 543 unpledged delegates backing her, and presumably the oncoming endorsement of the President and others. Given that she is actually at 2,312 delegates right now, another 360 means she will reach 2,672 delegates. That comfortably makes her the nominee. It also means she clinches the nomination when New Jersey is called, basically. Assuming she will win at least 30 more delegates in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, she will need just 41 more delegates, a number she is assured basically when New Jersey's polls close, even if she lost a stunning collapse.

In other words, despite the cool coverage of Bernie having rallies or going to Golden State Warriors games, or despite debates about debates, there's a simple truth to all of this- it's the math. Hillary Clinton will both win the majority of our elected delegates and the majority of our delegates on the night of June 7th, around 8 pm, when New Jersey's polls close.

Have fun watching cable news.

No, Hillary is Not Like Trump

From the great, and too often right, Bernie Sanders-supporting former Labor Secretary under President Clinton, Robert Reich's well-written piece on what's next for Democrats supporting both Clinton and Sanders:

Which brings me to those of you who say there’s no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

That’s just plain wrong. Trump has revealed himself to be a narcissistic, xenophobic, hatemonger who, if elected, would legitimize bigotry, appoint Supreme Court justices with terrible values, and have direct access to the button that could set off a nuclear war.

Hillary may not possess Bernie Sanders’s indignation about the rigging of our economy and democracy, or be willing to go as far in remedying it, but she’s shown herself a capable and responsible leader.

Some of you agree a Trump presidency would be a disaster but claim it would galvanize a forceful progressive movement in response.

That’s unlikely. Rarely if ever in history has a sharp swing to the right moved the political pendulum further back in the opposite direction. Instead, it tends to move the “center” rightward, as did Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

Besides, Trump could do huge and unalterable damage to America and the world in the meantime.

Finally, some of you say even if Hillary is better than Trump, you’re tired of choosing the “lesser of two evils,” and you’re going to vote your conscience by either writing Bernie’s name in, or voting for the Green Party candidate, or not voting at all.

I can’t criticize anyone for voting their conscience, of course. But your conscience should know that a decision not to vote for Hillary, should she become the Democratic nominee, is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump.

I have nothing to add to that which would make it any better.

The Democratic Nomination Fight Isn't Overly Close

Let me start by saying something that should have been obvious all along- Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. We get very caught up in micro-events during Presidential elections, when they don't really matter. We get caught up in "the horse-race," mostly because that's the way the race is covered. The coverage is outside of reality though, frankly. We've heard a lot about Bernie Sanders success in this race, and that is actually fair coverage, but then the media has morphed that into the race being excruciatingly close. That is false.

The Democratic Party process is created to do two things- give us a quick and decisive winner, and to make sure every demographic and issue group gets representation. What that does is it gives us an insurmountable leader by the end of the second month in the process, but it also means they won't "clinch" the nomination until June, if they ever do. If you watched in 2008, Barack Obama had an insurmountable lead in delegates by the end of February (month two) of about 160 delegates. At no point could Clinton close that all the way to a tie, or get herself a lead. President Obama never clinched though, actually being pushed over the top by the super-delegates after finishing the primary process with a lead that was about 1/3 the margin of Hillary Clinton's lead right now. The race was over in February. The nomination wasn't technically clinched until July's convention. This is how our process works.

It's important to understand though- Clinton has a much bigger lead than President Obama ever had on her. She has almost three-million more votes, a number neither of them ever lead by. She has a lead of 768 delegates. Her elected delegate lead is 269. She basically leads under any and all ways to configure this fight, as illustrated above. Her lead is significant.

It's also worth noting that nothing in this process "showed weakness." Bernie Sanders ran a credible campaign. He won states. He has a lot of delegates. Even after he was basically too far behind to win the nomination, he continued to win states. Most of the western U.S. will look very good for Bernie on a map when this is over. All of that is good for Bernie, but it's not significant to the general election. Hillary Clinton won contests after she had no shot of beating Barack Obama. Jerry Brown won contests against Bill Clinton after he had no shot. This happens. Voters who support the second place candidate do not become less passionate because they are behind. They don't stay home because the opposition declares they will win. Those second place candidates win some late primaries. It happens. On the final night of the 2008 primary process, I remember watching Hillary Clinton win primaries even as Barack Obama was celebrating crossing the delegate threshold to win (using super-delegates, mind you). She was out of the race quickly and without attacking the then-Illinois Senator. I suspect Bernie Sanders will win several states on June 7th. He may even win California, though i'm not so sure there. Even if he does, it won't matter. Hillary is highly likely to cross 2,383 delegates on June 7th, using her super-delegate endorsements as well. She will have won the contest.

The odds are that Clinton is going to win this race fairly easily. She's going to cross 2,383 early on the night of June 7th, and probably end up with at least 2,700 plus delegates, winning by over 700. She's going to cross 2,026 pledged delegates on the night of June 7th, clinching the majority of the elected delegates, and probably securing herself over 2,100 pledged delegates in the process, possibly keeping him below 2,000 total delegates even. She's going to lead in the popular vote. She's going to win this race by every metric, and we know that over a week before California even votes. That means the race was not overly close.

Perhaps this is not something pleasant for Sanders supporters. I understand, been there and done that. It isn't going to change though. The first female nominee for President is not going to have the nomination taken from her, even though she got the most votes. The super-delegates, whom she currently leads by about 500, are not going to switch sides and go with the second-place finisher. I totally understand why someone who supports Bernie Sanders would want them to, they want their candidate to win. That is not going to happen though. So while we argue about all kinds of nonsense about this primary contest, please understand- we know who is going to win now. She's going to win cleanly, and with a healthy margin. There really isn't much drama here.

Trump Surging? Not So Much

Republicans fall in line, not in love. I want you to remember that as you watch the polls in the coming weeks and months, and act surprised that Donald Trump isn't losing by 15-20% in them against Hillary Clinton. Every time you hear how she's surprisingly weak against him, or how Bernie would do better remember what I said. Of course she's not doing better than Bernie, she's actually a candidate for the general election. Of course Trump is close or even leading some polls, he's the Republican nominee.

Look, eight years ago at this time, Hillary was doing better than President Obama in general election polls. When you're not going to win, you're being attacked less, and you do better. It's really not hard to figure out. Much as the Republicans would have attacked Hillary with every vicious lie that they are now in 2008, Republicans would turn on a dime and utterly decimate Bernie Sanders if he were the nominee. There's lots to attack, and i'm not even talking about calling him a socialist, though i'm sure they'd turn him into some combination of Mao, Castro, and Stalin by November. To be polite, Bernie is benefitting from less than full coverage. I think his Senate Chairmanship of the committee that oversees the Department of Veteran Affairs from 2013-2015 alone would disqualify him in the general election. Of course he polls well right now- because he isn't going to win. That is the main point. The person who is going to lose, always looks better at the end of the process.

So with that out of the way, let's talk about Trump's "surge." When he initially became the presumptive Republican nominee, Hillary Clinton had a double digit lead on him. Now he's tied or leading in many polls, causing a lot of people to grow concerned about her in the general election. We're a far cry from when most of the articles were talking about his bad map. Clearly this is bad for Democrats, right?

No. After winning the GOP nomination in 2008, John McCain enjoyed a good Spring in the polls. Mitt Romney did very well about now in 2012, after clinching the GOP nomination. What did I say in the first line of this article? All of this is just the GOP base-consolidating behind Trump. To be clear, i'm not saying Hillary Clinton is a stone-cold lock, or that she'll have a ten point lead in a month. Not at all. I'm saying the current polling is a product of formerly skeptical Republicans decided that Donald Trump is superior to Hillary Clinton amongst their choices. This is to be expected- they are Republicans. Coming in around 46% is also quite consistent with where ultimately McCain and Romney came in as well. The only recent Republican to do better than that in a general election was George W. Bush. Trump continues to suffer from all of the problems that Romney and McCain did in the last two elections against President Obama- bad polling numbers amongst African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, Women, Youth, and all other non-old, white, and male groups. You cannot win a national election just winning white people. Not in 2016. That day in American politics has come and gone.

I guess this is as good of a time as any to address the "Bernie or Bust" worries though. While no one is as annoyed as me at these people, it is worth noting that I don't think they are the end of the world that we treat them as. For one, about 66% of Sanders national support says they will back Clinton in the general election, a number that is in line with where Clinton supporters were with President Obama at this point in 2008. In the end, the overwhelming majority of the holdouts came around to the President, and there is no compelling reason right now to believe that won't happen. Some will not, but I'd also wager a guess that most of those voters have not been past Democrats. Do I like that this process goes on and continues to be nasty and divisive? No. However, in the end I believe she will get 85% or more of the Sanders support in the general. If i'm right, it will be enough. The real hardcore "Bernie or Bust" people will make their point, and that's fine. They can embrace their privilege of choice any way they'd like.

Now, none of this means i'm saying Hillary is in the clear. She has high negatives, and that's not being helped by this primary fight. Unlike President Obama in 2008, she is underwater with independents. She will have a tough time winning this race, and it probably will look more like 2012 than 2008. Could she end up as our generation's George H.W. Bush, winning a third term for her party in a landslide? Sure. She could lose too though, even though I doubt it. My point is that she's in for a fight.

Back to the main point at the beginning though- Republicans fall in line, not in love. Donald Trump is their nominee now. They hate Hillary. This isn't hard for them. Trump isn't really "surging" by picking up Romney and McCain voters. He needs a lot more than that to win. He's simply consolidating his base, something Clinton has not done yet.

What If She Doesn't Win?

Let me start out by saying this- I believe Hillary Clinton will win. I want Hillary Clinton to win. I think she's likely to win. I think she'll do a great job. I'm totally with her.

However, a thought crept into my mind the other day- what if she doesn't win? Not the nomination, which I consider to be over, but the general election? What if we have President Trump, and not President Clinton? What does that mean for the country? What does that mean for the Democratic Party? Does it mean we should have went with Bernie?

I'm going to reverse the order in which I answer these questions to say that even if she doesn't win the general election, I will have no buyer's remorse in choosing her over Bernie Sanders. Here's the truth of the matter- I think she's the better choice, has the better ideas, has the better experience, and is a more credible voice. I don't really agree with his ideas as much as her's, I see no sign that he is personally so capable as to actually pass his ideas, nor do I believe his plans have any chance at all of passing in Congress. In short, even if she doesn't win in the Fall, and you somehow convinced me he's actually a stronger candidate, my answer would remain Hillary.

So what would it mean for the Democratic Party? I think it has lasting meaning. I think you'd immediately see Elizabeth Warren become the de facto next-in-line for President, which is something this entire process has warmed me up to. Essentially, our party would be basically past the "Baby Boomer" era in politics, opening up the floor for the Cory Bookers, Julian Castros, and Xavier Becerras of the world to take center-stage in our party. While 2018's outlook would be quite a bit better, that would be assuming that the loss in 2016 hasn't completely decimated our party. My sense is that the "identity-politics" driven party we are right now would actually be crushed. History shows that Democratic defeat generally drives us towards more moderate options afterwards, rather than the opposite. The future would be one big depressing mess, with the only thing of value being the room created for some of our younger, rising stars. It's even possible that we would see the Supreme Court get worse, something unthinkable for all the folks who said that demographics are destiny, and would help us.

If a loss would be bad for the party, it would be devastating for the country. Donald Trump is an utter ignoramus, a man who has no idea what to do if he were actually in office. He's a bigot, holds ignorant views on how to fix America's problems, and is an awful person in his personal and business lives. He's a silver-spoon born kid, who's dad gave him the world, and then he walks around thinking he's "earned" his success. He's bankrupt casinos, companies, and everything but himself, who was born with so much money that he can't do it. In short, the guy is an embarrassment. Having him represent our country to the world would be a disaster. Replacing President Obama with such an awful person, one who said President Obama wasn't even an American, is the worst thing imaginable.

So, what if Hillary doesn't win? Things will be pretty rough for a while. Politics will go from something that has always interested me, to something i'll despise. In short, it will be a disaster, which is why we can't let her lose. It's why all of this drama with Sanders' supporters incorrectly feeling they've been wronged by the party bothers me so much. It's why I have nothing nice to say to the "Bernie or Bust" crowd. It's why I think Democrats should reform the primary process to make sure we get these races done earlier in the future. This is not something we should need to contemplate in the future.

Facts and Hillary

I've become a huge Hillary Clinton fan, but that was not always the case. In 2007, I was not a Clinton fan. In fact, she was probably my third choice in that 2008 field for President, behind Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. I was tired of the "scandals," didn't agree with her on Iraq, didn't believe she had "earned" the nomination, and didn't think she was likable enough to be President. I was many of the things that today's Bernie Sanders supporters are, in their feelings to Hillary Clinton. I'm not today though, and that's not because Hillary has "changed," because she hasn't much. It's because i'm older, and I understand that facts should outweigh how I "feel."

Hillary Clinton is the most ethical leader we have in this nation today. I get that this will raise the ire of some, but there is no other logical conclusion to come to. For the last quarter century, the Republican Party in Washington, DC has had her investigated on everything from her e-mails to possibly murder. They've accused her of corruption, of crimes, and damn-near treason. She always, every single time, without fail, has ultimately not faced a single charge. To be investigated this much, and to not be charged is amazing. Any normal human-being would have been caught up in something they inadvertently found fishing for other stuff, as happened to her husband in the Lewinsky scandal (the GOP did not start out looking for her). That has never happened to Hillary. Despite all of the assertions that she is corrupted by money, is "bought," or is any number of other things, there is zero evidence to back that up. Hillary Clinton is one of the cleanest public officials we could have.

Of course, I'm supposed to believe the country hates her too. She has huge unfavorables, no one at her rallies, and can't be elected, or so they say. She has a lead in votes this year of over two-million, and received eighteen-million votes in 2008. Bernie Sanders seems to have so much more energy, and more people coming to see him, but yet he's losing the race to her. The only thing I can gather is that her critics are incorrect about her support.

I get it. Hillary Clinton doesn't feel pure or decent, she's calculating and smart, and she's willing to get deals done. That's not the stuff people feel good about in government, so they project negative characteristics on her. The truth of the matter though is, she's got a strong group of backers, and she's a quite honest person. Is she perfect? No. Some of the things I disliked about her in 2007 and 2008 were true. Even so though, the only facts that we bend in regards to Secretary Clinton as a society are the ones we willfully back to make ourselves feel better. If we were honest, we'd all admit it- she's the best, most qualified candidate running for President in 2016.

The Economy, Stupid

The United States of America has plenty of money. It has plenty of money to pay it's workers a living wage. It has plenty of money to build new infrastructure and repair the old infrastructure. We have the money to fund our schools and have health care. We have the money to do all that and still have a strong military.

We don't want to.

Now, I know that this sounds like something controversial to say, but it's really not. I'm not sure there's another way to view it. Mitt Romney got 47% of the vote specifically saying we can't. John Boehner and Paul Ryan have lead the House of Representatives for the last six years, saying we can't. Donald Trump just won the Republican nomination, probably with record vote numbers, saying we can't. The Republican Party has a record number of state legislative seats right now, mostly by saying we can't have these nice things. They say we have to accept a low or no minimum wage. They say we can't afford to better fund infrastructure or education. They say our economy would collapse if we raised the minimum wage. They win at least half the time too.

To be clear here, the American economy is not sustainable. Corporate profits are at record highs and minimum wage employment is not sustainable. The stock market has grown, by and large, for eight years, and most people haven't received accompanying wage increases. Americans are largely maintaining their standard of living off of credit again, and that will create a bubble that will eventually pop. Then when the bubble bursts, there will be another round of mass layoffs, and the responding recovery will once again be accompanied by lower wages than before the burst, and a round of hiring in the "Walmart" economy where wages are considerably lower, because the people working and their labor is easily replaced.

I'm not sure that we can afford to continue in the "pro growth" economy sometimes. I'd like to, because I believe in letting people "win" in the economy, but I just don't know anymore. If Apple makes billions of dollars in a quarter, but doesn't make enough billions, it's considered a loser. If a company makes a huge profit, but it's not bigger than last year's profit, it's a loser. Obviously supply and demand can't keep up with this need for corporate profit, so we see corporations maintain their profits the only ways they can- lay-offs, outsourcing, lower wage hires, de-unionization, ignoring environmental laws, and generally doing all the things that we collectively as a society wish they'd stop. If corporations have to make a bigger profit next year than they do this year, indefinitely, we can't expect that corporations aren't going to take every legal loophole they can to maximize their profits.

To be clear here, there is an extent to which this is a two way street. If you are a country that wants to maintain a high standard of living, you have create a highly skilled workforce that is worth that type of wage. While the United States is guilty on some level of failing at that, it is not as guilty as the pain being inflicted on the American worker suggests. The truth is that a lot of this is straight up corporate greed. While I'm not necessarily a Bernie Sanders super-fan, I do think he hit this nail on the head with a recent Facebook post:

Where I think this picture doesn't do itself justice is that it doesn't show how many people are being paid out of these two pots of money- 1.5 million workers make the minimum wage, while another 1.8 million make less per hour, together making up 4.3% of the work force. Meanwhile, Wall Street handed out $28.5 billion to 167,800- on just bonuses. The over-valuing of executive labor as compared to minimum-wage labor is too far out of control. I'm not a believer in wage caps for the rich, but the poor need to enjoy a better standard of living, without borrowing their way to it- they work at least as hard as Wall Street does. To be clear, compensation in the United States is not based on merit, nor is it at all reasonable.

Which leads me back to my point at the top- all I hear is how mad Americans are. I can see why, their wages aren't growing and they are falling further and further behind. I have trouble buying that they are really mad though. They don't vote like it. They vote mad about their guns, or transgender people in their bathroom, but they don't vote angry about their economic state. Many times, they vote for the people who put them there. A bunch of poor white people in the coal mountains of West Virginia voted for Donald Trump last week! Donald Trump is running around the country talking about how rich and successful he is, and super-poor people that work hard for close to nothing vote for him. Are they really mad?

No, I get it- they don't really understand the problem, and it's easier to blame Mexicans and Muslims than it is to say that maybe the economic benefits of being in a rich country should be wide spread. It's ignorance, not stupidity, to be clear with some liberals who don't get the difference, that these people just don't see the crimes being perpetrated on them for what they are. Walmart is paying you an inadequate minimum wage, without health benefits or a pension system, and then not paying taxes to fund the welfare programs- Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, WIC, etc.- which is pushing the burden of paying that on the middle class- because they don't have loopholes to avoid taxation. They've set up a rigged system where the middle-class have to pay for the poor, which makes the middle class hate the poor and vote for the elected government that is giving Walmart their plum deal in the first place. Resentment bares out more resentment.

It is, and always will be the economy, stupid. That's if you care to get out and vote smart. You may not love Hillary Clinton, but she's talking about good paying jobs, she's talking about raising the minimum wage, she's talking about corporate taxes. Sure, she has her flaws, and she's wrong about some stuff. She's still a far better option for you than Donald Trump, if you want a more equitable, more fair system. The last time a Clinton was in office, things weren't so bad, were they?