image from twitter
1. glad to see bernie pushing through.
if this was back in 2008, i wouldve been in the bandwagon for hilary. but 8 years later, gratefully, feminism had time to cultivate next generation of girls who are willing to be more inclusive, of other minorities- the poor, undereducated, legally suppressed; this is progress, where women feels less pressure to concentrate all their voting influence for the single reason of female figure(s) visibility. i understand the older women's frustration, but in contrary, they should be proud of us, the girls, for being able to reach out to larger minority: the have-less, even if that means overseeing age and gender of sanders
2. trump's lead among the conservatives arent surprising. he polarizes and other nominees appear to be moderate in comparison to trump, hence the even split on the field among kasich, cruz, bush and rubio. the real challenge is when candidates start to withdraw. should a moderate rise to the second position after bloody contest among themselves, then i would worry.
3. as long as trump ends up representing the republicans, the election has hope, as his attitude-his best asset, ironically may persuade the public to opt for the 'other'- sanders, yes, the socialist! gasp. and if trump heads republicans, then begrudgingly, democrats have to stick together. so it becomes a contest of: pro-sanders, anti-trumps and pro-trumps. anti-trumps, the minority then will decide the election.
4. if a moderate republican, say, bush, somehow gets ahead of trump for nomination, then it gets complicated. similar to above, a contest of: pro- republicans (they will clump against democrats), anti-sanders (anti-socialists) and pro-sanders. the division within the democrats can hand the win to republicans easy.
5. hilary's history of survival and success, ironically, is driving her away from previously supportive audience (esp the young women), as sanders' war on class puts hilary in a very emotional place for many.
6. trump's bullish personality is drawing people toward him; this trend will not stop unless people realize that a government simply cannot operate as for-profit business. a government's roll is to allocate wealth within the system for citizens, not rolling the books to black. in fact, because of its non-profit nature, government debts, especially in forms of bonds and loans within the country, is not necessarily bad, as debts then signifies investments (across generations). however, foreign-sourced debts is a problem (i wonder how many americans are aware of countries such as china*with infrastructurs such as harbours and bridges, and united kingdom *through oil and manufacturing firms). and unlike trumps' failed enterprises, a government should not look into bankruptcy as an elective option (trump airline, taj mahal casino@atlantic city etc)
7. i need to wind down and go to bed. argh.