My Predictions

It is still incredibly early in the game, but just for fun, here are my 2016 Presidential Election Predictions-

• Bernie Sanders will gain in momentum until the first real televised debate. He's fun, he's shocking, etc, but really, he's not presidential material. Once people see him on stage next to other candidates and realize he's radical, but not relate-able, he will dwindle off. 
• Hillary Clinton will always have deep pockets, so she will stay in the race. She won't exit until the Democrats produce a viable candidate who beats on a Super Tuesday in the primaries. I expect she will easily win Iowa and New Hampshire though. 
• I predict that sooner or later Joe Biden will enter the race, but not until Clinton has suffered an extreme blow that he (and Obama) can safely claim no relationship to. (Said blow, which is inevitable, since she gets them all the time, will not hurt her campaign, because said blows never do hurt Clintons somehow.) I do expect he will be a very likable candidate. 
• Carly Fiorina will continue to rise in the polls. 
• At the next major GOP debate, everyone will try to beat Fiorina, and be the anti-Donald, by being The Donald (with stunning sound bytes). 
• Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, and Rand Paul will survive till January/Iowa/South Carolina. The others will drop out due to lack of funds in the meantime. 
• There are too many GOP candidates to predict which ones will emerge as the real leaders. My hope, at this juncture, is that it will be Carly Fiorina, Scott Walker, and Jeb Bush. 
• The Democrats will eventually produce a few more candidates. 
• Bobby Jindal will be considered a VP candidate for the GOP
• We will be subjected to multiple news articles about the potential of another Bush/Clinton showdown. This will not change the actual likelihood of a Bush/Clinton showdown. 
• Iowa and New Hampshire will continue to be unfairly represented in campaigns. But the swing states will get a lot more time and attention. Ethanol will be discussed ad nauseum, because Iowa corn farmers like it, even though it's not good for the overall country. 
• I do think Jeb Bush will go far, but I can't see him winning the national election. But I do see him lasting at least 2-3 Super Tuesdays. 
• Bernie Sanders will break off and go third party. It will be an extreme, left wing third party, with the support of Ralph Nader. 

Let's Connect! https://www.facebook.com/AuthorErinAnnMcBride http://twitter.com/erinannie https://instagram.com/erinannie17 https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinmcbride https://www.goodreads.com/erinmcbride https://www.pinterest.com/erinannie/ http://www.amazon.com/Erin-Ann-McBride/e/B0094UQZSS/

Ted Cruz as Captain Kirk?

Senator Ted Cruz is a Star Trek fan. Possibly a delusional and ill-informed Star Trek fan. That's not a knock on Trekkies. That's a hit on Cruz. I'm a pretty big Trek fan (and overall sci fi fan) myself. Cruz could have won me over with slightly more accurate and interesting commentary. 

In a New York Times interview the presidential wannabe declared, "I think it is quite likely that Kirk is a Republican and Picard is a Democrat."

Quote from the article: 

If you were a journalist interviewing, what would you ask? Who knows, I might well ask, "Kirk or Picard" I've never been asked that before, and I actually have a strong opinion on it. 
Well, that goes with being a Kirk person. It does indeed. Let me do a little psychoanalysis. If you look at "Star Trek: The Next Generation," it basically split James T. Kirk into two people. Picard was Kirk's rational side, and William Riker was his passionate side. I prefer a complete captain. To be effective you need both heart and mind.
I thought your critique might go in a different direction, because "Next Generation" is more touchy-feely in its politics than the original. No doubt. The original "Star Trek" was grittier. Kirk is working class; Picard is an aristocrat. Kirk is a passionate fighter for justice; Picard is a cerebral philosopher. The original "Star Trek" pressed for racial quality, which was one of its best characteristics, but it did so without sermonizing.
Do you have a suspicion about whether Kirk would be a Democrat or a Republican? I think it is quite likely that Kirk is a Republican and Picard is a Democrat. 

He's flat out wrong. Even Shatner called Cruz out. 

(Shatner is Canadian.) 

But let's get serious here. 

Kirk is no Republican. He's a playboy who likes to save the day and revels in the glory. He's all about equal rights and free love, and will create those rights with a raygun as needed. Republicans have never been big on creating equal rights with military force. (They will defend existing beliefs with military force, but have never been ones to create new rights. It's just not their thing.) Kirk was all about expansion and the unknown. Republicans like to keep things close to home and traditional. 

Picard is not a Democrat either. He's a Lincoln Republican. He's a diplomat, well-read, and academic in his decisions. He wouldn't make a good politician, but he'd be a great U.N. ambassador, balancing the needs of different cultures so that everyone can live in peace and justice. 

Riker would be a Republican. He's all about defending his beliefs and isn't afraid to pull out a gun. 

Spock and Data would be Libertarians- straight up, unbiased, literal readings of the law without emotion. Spock would be great on the Supreme Court. You know, if he were human enough. 

But that's just my take on things. 

As one friend put it, "The entire argument is moot, albeit interesting; politics is the art of managing limited resources to fulfill unlimited wants. Both captains live in a world of unlimited resources."

He has a point. 

Now, if Cruz were to follow up his NY Times interview with a blog post further expounding upon his Star Trek rational, he could conceivably win over a few Trekkies. And considering his ranking in the polls this week, that couldn't possibly hurt. 

Click to enlarge. 

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Born Republican? Born Democrat?

Are political ideologies genetic?
Watch this short 2.5 minutes video and you may be surprised!
From Academic Earth: Born Republican? Born Democrat? 
Created by AcademicEarth.org

DNC boos putting God into the platform

Something fascinating happened off peak hours, and was therefore largely unseen, at the Democratic National Committee today.  The DNC suspended the rules of the convention and inserted language back into the platform.
It was called to a voice vote. Representatives there have made it clear that they did not have a quorum present to do so, and even then, the new language was not voted in favor of. In fact, it was booed.
The language in question- putting the word "God" back into the statement "we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."
And-
" Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."
Yes, that was booed.
Need more proof?

Both statements were in the 2008 party platform. The DNC had approved a platform the night before. Restoring the mention of Jerusalem goes along with what advisers said was the president's personal view, if not the policy of his administration. The administration has long said determining Jerusalem's status was an issue that should be decided by Israelis and Palestinians in peace talks, but has been careful not to state that Jerusalem is Israel's capital.

There is no question about it though. What happened around 5 pm ET today did not reflect the views of the majority of delegates at the convention. The vote had to be taken 3 times and even then, it is something of a stretch to say it passed with a majority (if they even had a 2/3 quorum present). After it passed it was loudly booed in the convention hall. 

Only time will tell if we will get an answer as to why these two defining and religious changes were made. Only time will tell why they were left out in the first place. 

But one thing is for sure, the reaction by the delegates may be the most telling part of the entire thing.

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Surprises in Kentucky and Arkansas Primaries for Democrats

Just when you thought the primaries were just a formality and didn't matter anymore, something interesting happens.
President Obama didn't have an opponent in Kentucky, so you would except him to win by a fairly large margin, right? But no! Instead, he only took 57.9% of the vote. Everyone else was "uncommitted."  And that was how his own party felt about him!
And he didn't do much better in Arkansas either. With 70% of the votes in, he only had 59% of the vote. He did face a challenger in Arkansas. A man named John Wolfe, an attorney from Tennessee whose platform includes repealing “Obamacare.” Wolfe took 41% of the vote and was able to win several counties.
Mitt Romney did slightly better in his own primaries, but not much better. He took 67% of the vote in Kentucky, (Ron Paul took 13%), and 69% in Arkansas. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum each took 13%. Even Newt Gingrich did better in Arkansas than he did in many states when he was actively campaigning. He got 5% of the vote.

What does this mean for November? 

Obama has had a difficult time winning even the Democrats in the more conservative states. (Let's not forget the 43% of Democrats in West Virginia who voted for the currently imprisoned felon over the POTUS.) He only took 30% of the primary in Kentucky in 2008, and 26% of Arkansas in 2008. But overall, this probably doesn't mean anything for November. Obama was never going to win those two states, and now we have more proof to support that theory. 

But here's the catch- Kentucky is historically a blue state. So why don't they like Obama more? The Washington Post's The Fix addresses that question today with "Is it racism?" The article is worth a read.