Why Hillary Clinton would lose this mockery of an election
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”. You’ll find this gem of a quote by Mahatma Gandhi on Trump’s Instagram page against the picture of a huge Alabama rally. He posted it on the eve of Super Tuesday — when Republican presidential nomination was announced.
Before I begin, I must say that this is not a pro Donald Trump article and I do not endorse him in any way. A lot has been written on what is going to be the planets most watched democratic process. The Presidential Elections in United States in November this year would be a very close affair due to many reasons.
Hillary Clinton is a formidable adversary for any Republican candidate. She has been involved with White House for years, be it as a senator or as the secretary of the state. She is impeccably involved and experienced in state craft. But even the hardcore Democrat voters are not able to relate or connect with her. Her speeches appear to be artificial at best and lacking emotional connect. She is largely seen as the apple of the Wall Street’s eyes and this is where Obama’s legacy doesn’t even come close to help her.
During Obama’s presidential election campaign everybody hoped that he would deliver genuine economic change, but that didn’t happen. People were enamored by his intelligence, his charismatic personality and the beautiful ways he wrote and spoke about race and society. People were thrilled that Obama seemed to get his money from small donors only, and that he would break Wall Street’s stranglehold on the Democrats.
Barack Obama spoke of regulatory reforms in almost every rally during campaign but did absolutely nothing in putting a check on wall street on getting elected. Instead he appointed Tim Geithner as Treasury secretary, he was the same person who acted nothing more like an advocate of Goldman Sachs during his tenure as New York federal reserve after the 2008 sub-prime lending crisis. Tim Geithner had never worked as a regulator at that time. The new president of federal reserve is William Dudley, former Chief Economist of Goldman Sachs. He is a huge supporter of derivatives and deregulation in the name of “financial innovation”. You can very well imagine what could have possibly gone wrong.
Obama’s cartel is full of those very people who built the delicate structure of derivatives and deregulation. Hillary has raised close to $21 millions from Wall Street alone. Needless to say where it is heading.
Slow and gradual progress on reforms and deregulation would have been acceptable but appointing the very same people for the Treasury and inside the administration who backed those banks clearly indicates that Obama played according to the tunes coming from the people sitting in the echelons of Wall street only. Barack Obama will leave white house with very little to show on the card and this fade legacy makes Miss Clinton’s job even more tougher.
Oh wait! How can I forget to include the infuriated supporters of Bernie Sanders? One of the things Bernie Sanders supporters absolutely abhor so much are banks on the Wall Street. On the other hand, the engine of the Hillary Clinton’s campaign is being fueled by the money from Wall Street. Her presidency, if it ever happens, already owns a lot to corporate America. In other words she has already been bought by the Wall Street. If we give attention to a previous poll, more than 20 percent of Bernie voters claimed that they will vote for Trump if Sanders isn’t the nominee. With protests growing we can safely assume that those 20 percent are not very happy.
Democratic party can’t offer an economic vision to their own angry voters.
And after all of this, Hillary appears to be very weak when it comes to the real agenda, instead she is seen attacking and counter arguing Donald Trump. When you visit her official campaign site the very first thing you will see is a plea to not vote for Donald Trump instead of telling why you should vote for her. A dedicated and focused anti Trump campaign is the spearhead idea behind the whole website. Everything about her campaign is reactive and not proactive.
You know Hillary Clinton is shooting herself in the foot when you see Trump’s name in her campaign’s slogans. In spite of being a senator and the secretary of the state she tries to portray herself as an “outsider”. Little does she know that her familiarity with white house and “insiderness” could actually be a decent advantage. Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign has been reactive and not proactive. Time and again we have seen elections being won because a large number of population goes out and votes based on image, appearance and personality. Donald Trump has been managing and creating a brand image in more efficient manner. He appears believable and his supporters understand what he is saying, they connect with him.
Enter Trump. He has unified a furious and angry white electorate. By making controversial statements, Trump is getting $1.9 Billion worth of free media coverage, everyday! He uses that free airtime to tell everyone how he is leading and going to win. He is following the strategy of winning one opponent at time. He eliminated his opponents in Republican party one by one and is slowly changing his aggressive stance to counter Hillary.
Would Trump as the president be a disaster? Yes. Would his presidency cause economic, legal and moral crises? Definitely. Would poor, coloured, immigrants and especially Muslims be marginalized and pay the highest price? Absolutely. There is no doubt that a presidential nominee should be presidential. Trump and his usual self make him appear more like a prime time reality TV show participant.
Will Hillary prevail? Maybe. Because she has a lot of firepower in her arsenal to spare. She will have millions of dollars to burn and an army of enablers. Obama and Michele will join the campaign. The husband Bill and daughter Chelsea and a hundreds of other Democrats will be there. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren will do their part, so will Donald Trump by keep offending the liberal base and the minorities.
