The war between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz is over.
The former has unofficially clinched the Republican nomination, and Cruz is back in the Senate, preparing his 2018 bid for re-election. However, as one war ends, another one begins.
No, I am not speaking about the war between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, who is very likely to be the Democratic nominee.
I’m speaking about the war between Hillary Clinton and a still-defiant Bernie Sanders, who is fighting to the death to gain the upper hand as the last few primaries, notably the critical California primary, emerges.
This war has reached levels as to where Sanders has now officially endorsed Tim Canova, DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s opponent in the Democratic primary for Florida’s 23rd Congressional District, in response to Schultz’s perceived bias in favor of the Clinton campaign.
However, it is not the Debbie Wasserman Schultz issue that should be of concern if you are a Democrat and/or a liberal.
What should be of concern, in this case, is if Bernie Sanders could end up giving the White House to Donald Trump, because some of his supporters declined to vote for Clinton out of spite.
Like this? You can write for us too!
This does not seem like a far-fetched scenario here.
According to a poll jointly conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News that was published on Tuesday, 31% of Sanders supporters say they may not or will not support Clinton in the general election. 64.5% of that 31% (or 20% of all Sanders supporters) say that they will vote for Trump.
When you take into account that 43.4% of all Democrats support Sanders (according to the latest RealClearPolitics average), this translates into 13.5% of all Democrats refusing to vote for Clinton, and 8.7% of all Democrats voting for Trump.
And remember, this poll was taken before the convention, whose outcome is now going to be determined by superdelegates, because of how close the race has been.
Many Democrats may not know this, so if they see the convention fight play out on national television, these numbers are likely to go up.
In response to this development, I ran a theoretical scenario where Trump manages to unite the Republicans, but the disgruntled Sanders supporters carry out their threats at the above rates in every state.
Here’s what plays out, based on the latest RCP averages in individual states (and assuming that the RCP averages assume that Clinton unites the party):
-Trump wins every swing state, except possibly Nevada (which has no recent poll data on the site).
He also wins Connecticut, a state that is normally considered to be a Democratic-leaning one, and comes within two points of winning New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin, three other Democratic-leaning states.
He may also win New Mexico, another Democratic-leaning state that could come into play in this scenario, but does not have recent poll data on RCP.
This leaves him with as many as 349 electoral votes (assuming he wins Nevada and New Mexico), and Clinton with as few as 189.
In the process, New Hampshire votes Republican for the first time since 2000; Connecticut, Michigan, and Pennsylvania vote Republican for the first time since 1988; and Minnesota votes Republican for the first time since 1972.
In other words, Clinton would be blown out of the water.
If you are a Democrat and/or a liberal, this should be a wake up call for you.
If you are a Republican and/or a conservative, this should be a wake up call for you.
Sanders is becoming the spoiler that may determine the election. It is time for the candidates who want to win to go after his voters.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Phil Roeder/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
If House And Senate Don’t Agree, Could There Be A Government Shutdown Over Syrian Refugee Program Changes?
The unfortunate recent terror attacks in Paris have led to more than half-31 to be precise of the nation’s governors to declare that they will refuse entry to Syrian refugees into their states.
Florida’s governor, Rick Scott among others had gone so far as to request House Republicans push a bill through Congress to prevent Syrian refugees from entering his state.
On Nov. 19th, the governors’ wishes was granted. The House passed the SAFE Act, with an overwhelming 289-137 vote, enough to override a veto, which President Obama has already said he would do if the bill were to pass the Senate.
The SAFE act wouldn’t stop Syrian refugees from entering the United States, however, it could place a very long pause on the current Syrian refugee program.
The act would add an extra screening process in the already extensive, 18-24 months, vetting procedure refugees must go through before placement in the country by requiring the directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, and Director of National Intelligence personally sign off on each refugee granted entry.
Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are also offering their own alternative to the SAFE Act, which would place limitations on the visa waiver program by refusing eligibility to individuals who have traveled to Syria or Iraq in the past five years, the real question is whether the Senate will be able to block the House’s bill from passing before their alternative can get off the ground.
It’s also possible the House and Senate and the bipartisan coalitions in each will reach a stalemate. If you keep in mind the fact the next government budget deadline is Dec. 11th, then it wouldn’t be completely out of place for House Republicans, (with perhaps some Democratic support) to threaten another government shutdown in order to pass the SAFE Act. In fact, it is entirely possible.
Cover Photo Credit: Freedom House/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Exclusive: The Rent Is Too Damn High Guy Is Running For President In 2016, And He’s Totally More Reasonable Than Trump
Jimmy McMillan is best known as the founder and leader of the Rent Is Too Damn High party in New York state.
He is also a perennial candidate for public office, having run for Governor of New York in 2010, President in 2012 and in a number of other races dating back to the early 1990s.
He is running for office again in 2016, this time for president as a member of the Republican Party.
Perhaps only in the strange show that is the 2016 GOP primary for president would McMillan’s candidacy actually make sense.
It still doesn’t, but in a race with the likes of Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Florina leading the pack, McMillan actually sounds like a viable alternative.
He has a plan to unite young people to form a quasi-conservative counterweight to the Tea Party in the GOP.
He also really doesn’t like Democrats; believing that the party manipulates minorities to vote for them and blames President Barack Obama for much of the nation’s issues.
If you close your eyes and ignore the periodic conspiracy theories that he spouts in a reserved tone, then you can almost envision McMillan on the debate stage next to Bobby Jindal and George Pataki. (If not Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee.)
In a phone interview with Rise News, McMillan said that he was running as a Republican so he could reach out to young people.
“My job is to put the presidency in perspective. They’re [his opponents] all contributors to the failures of this nation,” McMillan said in a phone conversation last week. “We’re at the crossroads right now where the candidates running for president don’t really know what’s going on in America.”
McMillan came to national fame in 2010 when he basically hijacked a debate for New York Governor and pressed his famous message, a screed against the high cost of living in the City into nearly every answer he gave- “the rent is too damn high!”
Five years on from that viral campaign and McMillan is back to being being a fairly obscure figure. But his message and ideology have remained pretty consistent. He wants to lower the high cost of living in the country and things that statewide leaders are clueless on how to get it done.
He has special scorn for the current and former governors running for president in 2016.
“If they [governors] would have reduced the cost of living in their states, then we’d be in a different position but they didn’t do that,” McMillan said. “The governors need to come to my class to learn how to create jobs in their states.”
McMillan said that he also has an agenda for how to take America back over from “third world countries”, something that he contends is a legitimate thing.
Greg Fisher, a teacher from Long Island is his running mate. Because why not?
Here’s what a McMillan/Fisher administration would bring to America:
-Supports canceling student loan debts for all Americans.
-Wants to bring martial arts to the White House for national demonstrations.
-Supports reducing the cost of living while also encouraging wealthy people to spend more money to spur economic growth.
-Improving the Veterans benefits system.
If you look past the martial arts thing, those are actually legitimate, close to mainstream political views.
So why should we take this person any less seriously than Donald Trump?
Like Trump, McMillan is also really quotable. Here’s some of the best verbatims from our 45 minute conversation:
“I endorsed Deez Nutz, he’s only 15 but he sees what’s wrong with this nation.”
“We have a precedent right now, not a president,” McMillan said in reference to President Obama being the first African-American president.
“The Democratic Party has used the minority people to get elected. The’ve used ministers, who I think are the biggest nincompoops in the world to brainwash minorities.”
“I have nothing to say about Trump. He’s not saying anything about policy, he’s just talking about Trump.”
Photo Credit: dumbonyc/Flickr (CC By 2.0)
” When I ran in 2012, I wanted Donald Trump to be my running mate.”
“Here in New York, you have a mayor and a governor who are stuck on stupid.”
“I’m a Vietnam vet. The Viet Cong almost caught me but I knew two things: how to speak Vietnamese and how to smile.”
“Even if the whitest guy in America found out that he has that nigger in him then it would make a difference,” McMillan said while talking about educating all Americans about our common African ancestry.
“I’m not African-American. I’m Jimmy McMillan, I’m a Vietnam veteran.”
“We’re not trying to reach out to conservatives. We’re trying to get young people to vote. When mommy and daddy go to the polls, try to put some butter on the ground or a banana peel on the ground to get them to slip so they don’t vote.”
“I want to talk to the people in the street. I want to be the father of the country. It’s time for daddy to say its all alright. I’ll be daddy.”
Well what say you America? Ready to call Jimmy McMillan daddy? That probably beats the hell out of calling Donald Trump Mr. President.
Like this piece? Rise News just launched a few weeks ago and is only getting started. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up to date with global news. Have a news tip? (No matter how big or small!) Send it to us- [email protected].
Cover Photo Credit: Paul Stein/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Congress Sneakily Passes Provision To Discriminate Against Iranians, Sudanese And Others
The visa waiver program has undergone major changes in the US after Congress quietly passed a controversial provision that was included in an unrelated massive bill, triggering protests from civil liberties groups, minority groups and the European Union.
The legislation was tucked away in the massive omnibus spending bill passed by Congress, and it received bi-partisan support, a rarity in this Congress. President Obama signed it into law on Friday.
However, it didn’t go through without criticism. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has slammed the legislation in a letter, saying it is not only “discriminatory, it is arbitrary.”
The new law means that dual nationals of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan who are also a citizen of a country participating in the Visa Waiver Program are required to go to a consulate interview overseas to obtain a visa before travelling to the US for 90 days. It also means that an individual who has traveled to those countries in the last five years has to get a visa.
“This is discriminatory. It is not based on individuals’ decisions, but on parentage,” Abdi told Rise News. “It’s taking us down a dangerous path, setting a precedent that you will be treated differently because of your dual nationality.”
The changes gained traction soon after the Paris attacks, and even more so after the December 2nd shooting in San Bernardino which killed 14 people.
Syed Farook was a US citizen raised in a Pakistani household. His wife came to the US on a K1 fiancée visa granted by the US Embassy in Pakistan after clearing a background check. This was not under the Visa Waiver Program, and critics say the new law doesn’t target real threats.
Iranian dual nationals, some of the most vocal in opposition to the legislation, ask why Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not included in the list of countries the legislation has zeroed in on.
Read More: Kim Badawi-The Stories Behind The Lens
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC), is strongly opposed to the legislation. Jamal Abdi, the director of NIAC Action, said the legislation could place Iranian Americans “In a separate category to their fellow citizens.”
He expressed his concern on what the EU response will be, as the Visa Waiver Program is reciprocity. The EU will be reviewing the program in April.
“This is discriminatory. It is not based on individuals’ decisions, but on parentage,” Abdi told RISE NEWS. “It’s taking us down a dangerous path, setting a precedent that you will be treated differently because of your dual nationality.”
Under Iranian law, a child born to an Iranian citizen father is automatically an Iranian citizen, whether they are born there or not. This is the same for all four countries deemed as dangerous in the legislation. Renouncing citizenship is also a long and complicated process, according to critics.
The legislation has also angered European diplomats, and 29 European Union ambassadors, representing member states and the EU itself, signed an editorial directed at US lawmakers, arguing against the changes.
The diplomats warned this new regulation represented “the de facto introduction of a visa regime in all but name”.
They added in the letter:, “such indiscriminate action against the more than 13 million European citizens who travel to the US each year would be counterproductive, could trigger legally mandated reciprocal measures, and would do nothing to increase security while instead hurting economies on both sides of the Atlantic.”
The legislation also would not differentiate between those that travel to these countries for business, humanitarian efforts or familial reasons.
Thus it means that journalists and aid workers will be penalized while foreign fighters could just lie about having travelled there, as accessing if someone has travelled to Iraq or Syria is difficult because their borders are insecure.
There are also concerns that the new legislation could violate the Iran nuclear deal, or that this is even an attempt to undermine it.
Senior Obama administration officials have expressed concerns.
Stephen Mull, the State Department official in charge of implementing the deal had warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late last week that this “could have a very negative impact on the deal.”
Ali Larijani, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, said the changes “are aimed at harassment” and that they “blatantly violate the nuclear agreement” according to comments carried by the Iranian state-controlled press.
A portion of the Iran nuclear deal dictates that the US can not take any action that could harm Iran’s economic relationship with other countries, and since the legislations mandates that any travel to Iran for citizens in the 38 countries participating in the visa waiver program would have to obtain a visa to enter the US, there are concerns this could make businesses reluctant to travel to Iran.
Iranian officials maintain that these new restrictions violate this part of the deal.
Secretary of State John Kerry reached out to his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, to calm the stormy waters in a December 19th letter.
He stated that the US will find ways to make sure that changes to the visa waiver program will not interfere with “legitimate business interests.”
Kerry also assured Zarif that the U.S. government “remain[s] fully committed to the sanctions lifting provided for under the JCPOA.”
The head of Iran’s tourism body, Morteza Rahmani-Movahed, said Tehran would lodge a complaint to the U.N.’s tourism body, the World Tourism Organization. He told a press conference Sunday that some of the 38 VWP countries were Iranian “tourism targets.”
However, according to Fox News, Republicans have responded badly to the suggestion that they are “bending over backwards to placate the Iranian regime.”
The NIAC has committed to continuing to the fight the changes, saying on their website that they are in discussions with members of Congress “to take legislative action early next year.”
Have a news tip? Send it to [email protected]. Like to write? You can become a RISE NEWS contributor.
Cover Photo Credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)What Do You Think?
