THE IOWA ROUND UP

With the Iowa caucuses having come and gone, Americans got their first glimpse of who the people would like to see as the next President. First, let us congratulate the official winners of the caucuses: former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Ted Cruz. Hillary Clinton did well to narrowly exorcise her demons of 2008, when then Senator Barack Obama crushed her expectations with voter turnout, winning the Iowa caucuses, Cruz, on the other hand, pulled off the “upset” of the night by beating Donald Trump who held a sizable lead in the polls. Both winners deserve credit, but did they actually solidify their front-runner positions in this long, tumultuous race for the White House? This calls for a good old-fashioned Iowa caucus round-up!

Let us start off with what went wrong in the Iowa caucuses. We begin with the Republican polls leader, Donald Trump — because let’s be honest, he is not the front-runner anymore. Donald Trump had to learn the hard way that polls are misleading and it is better to have the element of surprise than to be knocked off the mantle. For a short moment, the billionaire was in jeopardy of falling to third, as Marco Rubio was on his heels. After leading in the polls in Iowa for several months, many, myself included, assumed that Trump would win Iowa and this would set the tone for the rest of the Republican nomination process. However, what we saw was that ground game beats big game any day of the week — which leads me to Ted Cruz. Though it came to light that he spread false rumors about Dr. Carson, we can assume that it would not have made much of a difference. Cruz had what I like to call the Three Es that Iowans are looking for: Evangelism, Experience, and Ethanol. All three are very much needed in Iowa; put that together with his ground game and Cruz cannot fail.

On to the Democratic side, I cannot say much went wrong since everything pretty much went as planned. From the beginning, Senator Sanders hedged expectations by saying they would “do well” in Iowa and, by and large, he did just that. Voter turnout was high and he lost by the narrowest of margins. Hillary also did very well as well. The only criticism I would give her is to hold off on declaring victory before actually winning. This only plays into the narrative that the system is stacked in her favor, and everyone loves an underdog.

Now, it is time for the good that came of the caucuses. In my first article, I wrote on how Marco Rubio could potentially come out and separate himself from the crowded field. The caucuses proved just that, as Rubio nearly came in second, finishing only one percent behind Donald Trump. The Republicans have noticed that Rubio is the best shot to getting them into the White House, though he has little governing experience in Washington. Another benefit of the caucuses was that people began dropping out. With the field diminishing in both parties, voters have the opportunity to separate the men from the boys. Policies and ideas can be the basis on which we choose the next president, not sound bites or brand recognition. I expect that in the coming days, more candidates will begin to drop out, giving us more depth in the debates.

In conclusion, the Iowa caucuses prove what they always do: that nothing is ever as it seems in American politics. As we turn towards New Hampshire, things will begin to get more and more personal. Campaigns will start to have to go into make-or-break mode; and this is especially so for the candidate governors. Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich have to make their cases and get people to vote for them or pack it in. I think that one of them will do well enough to remain in the race, but two will have to drop out. Bernie Sanders has a big lead in New Hampshire largely because Vermont is a neighboring state; but should his numbers hold up in the polls; this will hurt Hillary more going forward in Nevada and South Carolina. If Iowa was the starting ground, New Hampshire is the first wind, and may it always be at the backs of the candidate of your choice.

Potential Dropouts: Carson, Fiorina, and Kasich.

~ Consigliere

The State of Hesistation

As a staunch Obama supporter and a political junkie, I have watched this administration with a close eye and optimistic heart. Considering the many firsts that were heading into this presidency, Obama has more often times than not gotten the benefit of the doubt. I am a black male who followed politics since the great Bush v. Gore election blunder of 2000.  As an eight year old, I understood the magnitude of how the political landscape would change when Florida and the Supreme Court handed President Bush the White House. So my sixteen year old adolescent my heart was proud when I saw Barack Hussein Obama grab the highest mantle in the land. My love for politics grew with every victory and defeat following the 2008 elections. I understood that after 2010, the movement in which the President could govern would be severely hindered having lost the majority in the House. Which would only be hindered more when he lost majorities in both houses of Congress. Yet as I was sitting watching the President give his final State of the Union address, I found myself selfishly wanting more from him. Before coming in, the White House announced that this would be a different form of address to the nation — that he would do something that no other president had done in the past. Sure, the address was shorter, but was it really different?

In 2009, when delivering his first address, there was a different air about Obama — more passion and vigor. Obviously, that can be said for any first term president who is fresh off winning a national election, but this felt different, at least to me. He was ready to tackle the issues that were plaguing our country: a foreign war costing a considerable amount of lives and money, a failing economy coupled with a dying auto and housing industry, unemployment reaching great depression levels, and a nation with a glaring distrust for government. To be fair, to take on a laundry list of that size and that heavy, a lot of political capital had to be spent to make sure the country did not slip any further. I give the president the utmost credit for that; the country’s economy is moving in the right direction, the unemployment rate is 5%, the auto industry is booming, while the housing market slowly but surely still recovers. Yet I would be remiss if I did not point out some of his mistakes. Going into his presidency, one major concern was Obama's lack of knowledge on foreign policy. In his first term, it did not seem to haunt him as much; but when things are going good, you cannot expect them to stay good for long. Our exit strategy in the Middle East was flawed. This obviously left a power vacuum for groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda to gain strong footholds. China has built an island in the South China Sea, giving them much more power geopolitically. Russia has defied this administration at every possible turn. Yet through it all, I will say that President Obama has remained vigilant and steadfast despite taking his lumps on foreign policy.

Which brings me back to Tuesday night. I felt as though he played it relatively safe. I talked this over with some of my political confidants and they were split. Some felt he did well and some felt he was reserved. Sure, there were narratives attacking Republican presidential hopefuls like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. There were moments when he gave of us flashes of the man who ignited a nation towards change, but in the grand scheme of things it was not very different.  The country has and always will have a laundry list of issues that need to be addressed and President Obama should not hold on to whatever political capital he has left. I questioned why he was so timid, what was his cause to pause? Then I remembered what is stacked against him, how many things he has on his plate. It has been no secret that he has been using executive action to ensure a majority of his policies are pushed through. Yet in order for them to survive past this year he has to make sure they survive in court. He cannot appoint any Justices because, without a doubt, the Senate will hold up their confirmations. This means that if Democrats lose the White House this fall, ACA will go away, the Iran deal will die, progress made with Cuba could go out the window, and the Republican president could have the opportunity to appoint at least three Supreme Court justices.

Now it does not take a genius to look and see why Obama was a bit tentative, especially considering all the things mentioned. Yet for the president not to take any shots is very uncharacteristic of him. All this leads me to believe that he fears the GOP candidates and the elections more than we think. The worst possible outcome is one November day away from happening. After 2014, we saw a majority of the country turn red. In 2016, if things stay the way they are and the Democratic Party loses the White House, it essentially loses the Supreme Court as well. Who knows how this will leave this country? So much for a bicameral system…

~Consigliere

The D N Clinton !!!

Editor-in-Chic: Nia Langley 

At the beginning of this election season, former Governor Martin O'Malley voiced many complaints about how many debates the Democratic National Committee (DNC) should have, saying that there should be more debates to give the American people an opportunity to really understand who is running for president and where they stand on the issues. At first, like many people, I saw his cries as someone whining because he would not have a seat at the big kids' table; but now looking back, I see that he may have some merit to voice his concerns.  In a very lop-sided Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton is primed to run away with the nomination without having any serious problems before the general election. The question is: should she be allowed to claim that prize undeterred?

No matter what happens, we are all smart enough to know that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination; and I have no problems with that, especially since Biden has decided that he would not run for office.  The problem I have is Mrs. Clinton running away with the nomination. In a country that champions the power of the people’s right to choose their leaders, I believe it is important that the people have as many opportunities as possible to hear what the candidates have to say on the issues. Debates provide the perfect platform for the voters to do just that.  This election season has seven Democratic primary debates. To most, that may seem like a lot, but when looking back to 2008 when there were twenty-six, the current number really pales in comparison. Even though the Republican debates have proved to be less substantive, they still have 11 this season.

Former Governor O’Malley is currently in last place with 88 days left until the Iowa caucus, and many have written him off, me included; yet for the DNC to considerably limit the number of opportunities for the other candidates only adds fuel to the rumors that the Clintons have total control of the DNC. Why would they want to have control? If you remember correctly, around this same time eight years ago, Madam Clinton was in a similar position — she was leading in all the national polls and was the proverbial favorite to become the nominee. By debate 19, then Senator Obama was surging, and after debate 21, he was leading, and we all know what happened after that.  The only way history does not repeat itself is if you limit the amount of free exposure the public has to the unknown candidates.

Well played Clintons, well played. Now in no way, shape, or form does this mean that this is what happened, but it does make sense. If there is one thing I hate, it is sounding like a conspiracy theorist, so let me be clear — there is no conspiracy here because if what I say is true, the Clinton Campaign has done nothing wrong. They are supposed to be in coordination with the DNC, and they did just that. The DNC, on the other hand, should have never given so much power to one campaign. In an election cycle where the White House can legitimately be purchased, now, more than ever, the people should be the ones deciding who their next president should be, not special interest groups and definitely not national committees. Mr. O’Malley, though you will not be the next President of these United States, your cries have not fallen on deaf ears. You came up short because you went against the DNC, but in this case it was the (D N Clinton).

~Consigliere