I wrote a piece for E-IR getting into heavier detail about Sanders’ and Clinton’s respective strategies on economic inequality.You can read it by clicking this link.
The New York primary was an unmitigated disaster for Bernie Sanders. Polichart’s updated victory targets called for Sanders to win 54% of the vote and get 133 delegates. He got 42% and 108. This puts him 36 delegates behind schedule, and he still trails in the polls in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and California. Sanders failed to do better than the polling data in New York indicated he would do, damaging the comforting theory that polls in northern states underrate him. As regular readers know, I am very sympathetic to Sanders, but I cannot in good conscience mislead you about the realities of the political situation. In the last few days, many well-intentioned people have tried to make arguments that Sanders can still win or that Sanders would be winning if the DNC were not corrupt–I wish these arguments were true, but they’re not. Sanders is losing because most Democratic primary voters do not support him.
A friend of mine at Purdue University recently informed me that under the leadership of former Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN), Purdue has become the first major American university to offer Income Sharing Agreements (ISAs) to students as a new alternative to traditional student loans. ISAs are exploitative and morally disgusting. Here’s why.
Donald Trump recently claimed that abortion should be criminalized and that the women who get them should be punished:
Establishment republicans immediately pounced, claiming that only abortion doctors should be punished, not the women who seek them. Trump uncharacteristically backpedaled on the comments soon afterwards:
If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed–like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.
This whole controversy is being covered very poorly. There’s more to this than “Trump said something outrageous again”. Let me unpack it for you.
Last week Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appeared on Trevor Noah’s Daily Show to explain his endorsement of Ted Cruz, a man for whom Graham has repeatedly expressed contempt:
Graham compared the choice between Trump and Cruz to being shot in the head or poisoned, but hinted that there might be an antidote:
Donald is like being shot in the head. You might find an antidote to poisoning, I don’t know, but maybe there’s time.
This got me thinking–what could the antidote be? I have a theory that it might be Hillary Clinton. Far-fetched? Perhaps, but hear me out.