Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee for the 2016 presidential election.
The time for hoping for a different outcome is long gone. We need to prepare for the most likely result.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, did well on “Super Saturday,” but his victories won’t change the race.
As Matt Yglesias pointed out on Vox, “the most Cruz-friendly parts of the country have already voted.”
Cruz’s weekend surge correlates with his strong Evangelical support, helping him win Kansas, the Westboro Baptist Church’s backyard, and tying Trump’s delegate count in Tony Perkins’ Family Forum Louisiana stronghold.
The media are hyping up these wins because they’re drooling for someone to shake up the GOP race. Trump’s appearance of inevitability has become an old and tired story.
The Republican side of the race has devolved from the Real Housewives of Debates into a more intimate affair among two clueless Cubans and a man whose “hands” haven’t grown since freshman year of high school. One would think the Democratic race would garner more attention.
It hasn’t.
People only seem to be interested in the race when former Sec. of State Hilary Clinton wears the same pantsuit twice or industrious Googlers find videos from the ’90s to smear her reputation.
The only people able to defeat Trump in November will be either Clinton or Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vermont.
If everyone is as outraged about a President Trump as Facebook and Twitter timelines suggest, it’s time to abandon the GOP circus and pay attention to the other side.
I am an ardent Clinton supporter, and the world reminded us why her extensive foreign policy experience is important for our country.
American warplanes struck down 150 al-Shabab insurgents in Somalia on Saturday. CNN reported the insurgents were in the final stages of planning a large-scale attack.
War isn’t pretty, but, at times, we need to take decisive action. I’m glad President Barack Obama knows this and protects our people.
The Sanders campaign made a strong appeal to Democrats’ dovish strains, constantly bringing up Clinton’s vote for the Iraq war.
My father served in Iraq for a year during the war’s peak, so I, of all people, should have an axe to grind against politicians who sent soldiers in harm’s way.
But the information provided at the time to officials was biased toward getting them to authorize the war. Diplomacy was failing, and the vote wasn’t easy to make when put in the correct context.
Sanders’ reasoning for voting against the war, whether it be because he is a principled dove or because he was appealing to his liberal bastion of Vermont, is something only he knows.
His vote in favor of regime change in Libya, with the cover of having both Clinton and Obama in office, points to him being more shrewd in his political calculations than he is given credit for.
Regardless, I would still take a Sanders-led foreign policy any day over the incoherence of a Trump presidency.
The Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics found, “Sanders backers are notably more disaffected, a fact which might explain their reluctance to back a longtime insider like Clinton.”
I hope they put their problems with her aside and vote for her in November, if the likely outcome holds and she is the Democratic nominee.
Clinton had 18 million pledged supporters in 2008, but she asked her voters to put aside their differences and saved the country from a possible Sarah Palin vice presidency.
Accepting defeat can be tough, but even worse is knowing you could have changed the outcome if only you tried.
The Clinton coalition is broad. Different perspectives can only enhance it and even disaffected Republicans are welcomed. As she moves forward and the wind catches in her sails, Americans can rest assured we are in stable hands.
Garrett Hines is a 21-year-old political science senior from Monroe, Louisiana.