Today’s Indiana primary may be crucial for both parties. It may also spark a pivot when the campaign emphasis changes from personalities to policy.
For far too long, the 2016 Presidential campaign season has not substantially focused on issues, despite the urgent challenges facing the American economy and the national defense. In the wake of the inevitable whittling down of a number of the candidates, more attention may finally be paid to the mounting problems that seem to increase in seriousness daily.
Here’s how the candidates stand at the start of today’s crucial contest:
Sanders and Clinton have appealed to the vast number of voters who have been hard hit by the twin dilemmas of the aftereffects of the Great Recession (caused by federal policies mandating the distribution of loans to those without the means to repay them) and the failed economic policies of the Obama Administration, while at the same time supporting those very same policies. They have both also concentrated on wooing the increased numbers of Americans dependent, to varying degrees, on entitlement programs.
Sanders, despite his advocacy of redistributionist policies that cannot succeed without enormous and eventually counterproductive tax hikes, has been surprisingly resilient. Much of his appeal rests with millennials. They are saddled with enormous debt from vastly overinflated college tuition, and have comparatively little prospects for decent paying employment in a job market that continues in the doldrums (ironically due to policies that he supports.) While his solutions are not viable, his emphasis has focused a spotlight on a very real problem.
Clinton’s appeal has largely been to Democrat loyalists who wish to continue on the path President Obama has pursued. A key area of support anticipated by the former Secretary of State has not materialized, as younger women have not been particularly receptive to her gender message, and millennials in general are turned off by her rather long history of questionable ethics. Both now form the core of support for Sanders. Clinton is faced with an intriguing dilemma. To keep the support of party faithful, she must paint herself during the primary as the legitimate heir to President Obama. In the general election, however, she must divorce herself from the poor results of the Obama Administration’s policies at home and abroad. In foreign affairs, that may well prove impossible. She was the co-architect of the disastrous “Reset” with Russia that left the Kremlin with an advantage in nuclear arms, and alienated key European allies. Her role in the Benghazi scandal was more than just inept; an ongoing FBI investigation may well prove it to be criminal, as well.
They may also teach you about the proper generic sildenafil uk nutritional and exercise programs to help you achieve overall wellness and modify your unhealthy lifestyle. Sinrex will give you the confidence you cheap viagra unica-web.com need when you are naked. Some very common symptoms of migraines include a painful headache which is usually levitra no prescription throbbing and intense; blur vision which would be affected by flickering of lights or too many colors appearing at once, sensitivity to sound, vomiting, nausea, sometimes diarrhea, cold hands and or feet and unnatural lack of color in the skin especially on the face. If viagra pills for sale it were up to me, everyone would abstain until marriage.
The GOP has endured its most bruising primary in living memory, and it remains to be seen whether partisans of the numerous contestants can put aside ill feelings and coalesce behind the eventual nominee. Talk of a scheme by the Republican leadership to insert itself into the contest in one way or another has done nothing but alienate voters, many of whom already criticize party officials as being inept and unwilling to forcefully confront the White House.
The three remaining GOP candidates have delayed the vital step of replacing their criticism of each other with attacks on the policies of their Democrat opponents. The aftermath of the Indiana primary may change that.
John Kasich is the most pragmatic of the remaining candidates in either party, and the only one with executive governmental experience. He has not, however, adequately articulated a vision for meeting the significant crises affecting the U.S., or provided a convincing reason to choose him over other GOP alternatives. In an anti-incumbent year, his appeal has been limited.
Ted Cruz has articulated the most consistent approach towards addressing issues, and has established a record of strictly adhering to his beliefs, even at the expense of his own popularity within the Senate. He appeals strongly to conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists who have become deeply concerned over President Obama’s power grabs. His supporters frequently remind voters that Reagan, too, was unpopular with the GOP leadership before becoming president. But his rough campaign tactics and personal difficulty in establishing a consistent relationship with the Senate leadership has limited his ability to gain the necessary support. His naming of former candidate Carly Fiorina is a skillful attempt to expand his appeal to women voters.
Donald Trump has broken new ground in his unorthodox bid for the Republican nomination. An “outsider” to the Republican mainstream and the usual power brokers, his self-funded campaign has exceeded all expectations, and may have brought a whole new group of voters into the Republican Party’s orbit. He almost single-handily made Obama’s ruinous immigration policies a key issue in the campaign. Trump has now attempted to completely refocus the national discussion on foreign policy with his recent speech on that topic. In a year when most voters give incumbents consistent low marks, he is seen as a viable alternative to business as usual, contrasting his private sector practices with Washington’s failed approach. However, while his official website does provide some details, his tendency to make broad statements rather than provide specific policy details has worried some observers, and his avoidance of specificity (and his outsider status) has served, to this point, as a barrier to his desire to be considered the “presumptive nominee.” There are concerns that his lack of specificity would contrast poorly in general election debates with Clinton or Sanders.