In EP11 of Millennics–Chicagoans and the Presidential Candidates–Host Jonathan J. Cianfaglione reflects on his most recent trip to Chicago, and what he took away on how Chicagoans feel about the Presidential Candidates.
Millennics EP11 – Chicagoans and the Presidential Candidates, May 14, 2016.
On episode 11 of Millennics, we’re taking a look at how Chicagoans view the leading Presidential Candidates
Welcome back to another episode of Millennics—a podcast discussing politics, policy, and law from the viewpoint of Millennials. I’m your host, Jonathan J. Cianfaglione, and Millennics is presented by LogicalPost.net and support for this podcast comes from VIG and Associates.
It certainly has been a long time since the last podcast. A month to be exact. And in that month, a lot has happened.
First some house keeping things.
Since the last podcast, GooglePlay has rolled out their podcast player. Thus, for you android users, you can now find Millennics on the native GooglePlay Music app. For Apple iOS users, you can still find us on your native podcast app, and the iTunes store. If none of those fancy you, SoundCloud is the best way to go.
Now, let’s move on to content:
For the sake of being concise, and to avoid redundancy, I’m going to avoid discussing anything that was taxed relatively heavy in the media.
Instead, I’ll talk about quirks and intricacies that they missed—which, in fact are really important. Also, I plan to discuss a handful of new statutes and trends taking place in certain states that have the potential of spreading throughout the nation.
But, as for today’s episode, We’re talking about how Chicagoan view the leading Presidential Candidates. Why Chicago? Chicago has a diverse demographic of folks in both the economic sense, and the cultural sense.
Thus, Chicago allows me to find the blue collar worker and the white collar worker; the immigrant and the natural born; the white and the colored.
With such a diverse group, Chicago lends itself as a tool for assessing how these groups feel beyond the limits of Chicago.
Here’s what I found:
If you’re a Trump support, you’re pretty ecstatic. If you’re a Clinton support, you’re equally ecstatic.
The commonalities end there, with one exception discussed later
As for what I can understand from Trump supporters is they derive their energy from President Obama, the economy, the demographic shift in the U.S., and, now, that a woman might lead this country.
More pointedly, this is what I’m saying: Without President Obama and his policies, you don’t get Trump. Furthermore, without the changing economy in the US, where folks with limited skills and education continue to be squeezed, you don’t get trump. Moreover, without the changing demographic of the US, where white males steadily see their role and power in society declining, you don’t get trump.
And, now, Hillary is just the icing on the cake.
In other words, what I’m saying is when people say that Trump supporters are angry, and frustrated, what they mean to say is these are people who harbor racial preference tendencies, with inclinations toward sexism.
There really is no other way to put it, and I think the media is doing a crap job on this. This is not something to hide; this is something we need to reveal, and discuss, so that we can continue to climb out of the hole of racial discrimination that is most certainly the past of the US.
Today, Trump supporters show that the issue of race and sexism still has deep roots, and much larger than we thought it. Indeed, the vast support throughout the nation for Trump is, at a minimum, concerning.
In addition, not one Trump supporter can provide answers, with any sort of particularity, to some of the intrinsic flaws Trump carries with him. Off the top of my head, he has yet to stand by any one of his policies; instead, he shifts on them like shifting sand.
Further, there seems to be little concern among his followers that he doesn’t have a grasp of any concept of governance, policy, or economics. Confusingly, trump supporters point to his business skills as the concrete evidence that he can govern, understand policy, and, most importantly, has a command of economics.
At best, this is grasping for straws, if not outright drowning. To even make a close argument, I still don’t see the bridge between business, and economics. B/c someone knows how to sell, and pay their bills, doesn’t mean they understand the complex economy of the US, let alone the world. My 5 year old cousin knows how to make a simple transaction at fast food place … does this make him an economics expert?
Certainly, I don’t think Americans demand their politicians be experts in anything. But, what we do demand, is that our leaders have some acute awareness of how our systems work. But, when Trump says things, as he did this past week, that he would renegotiate America’s debt, or just print money to no end …. what Trump is talking about is a concept so fatal to the US dollar and economy it’s hard to even believe the thought was even realized, much less even muttered the words.
In sum, as it goes for Trump, this isn’t a “Make America Great Again” Campaign. This is Make America White Again campaign as evidenced by all the aforementioned.
Turning to Hillary, she is in parity with Trump when it comes to flaws.
I truly believe that Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate for many reasons. There are issues with free speech, transparency, particular policies that she believes in that would literally reverse parts of common law.
Oddly, however, I don’t think we will ever come across some of these issues with the election cycle so desperate for taglines, and not content.
Don’t be mistaken, though. Hillary has probably received the most scrutiny out of all the candidates. Whether that’s because she is a female, or because she part of the Clinton/Obama lineage, or because she has deep roots in politics. I think all angles have an argument, but the argument would be flawed if it didn’t contain all those angles.
Interestingly, I will point out that I was a bit surprised how many people weren’t concerned with this whole Wall Street Speeches controversy swirling. Instead, I heard a lot of people say that it was on the pole for them, just not that high up.
Hillary speech controversy, where she made speeches for money, are the weirdest thing to beat Hillary over the head with. I’m still confused why it’s still making media cycles.
Of course Sanders hasn’t made any speeches for money; he can’t! Nor can any sitting senator, representative, or other government office. They are actually barred from doing so.
Indeed, when Hillary gave the speech, we had already departed her position as secretary of state. Thus, she made the speeches after 2013. So the argument that Hillary’s decision to help Wall Street was because she was connected through these speeches is turned on its head.
Further, this is a common thing politicians do once they leave office. As I noted in Chicago, virtually every politician reaps the benefits of their positions after the fact by getting paid to make speeches to organizations.
Another obvious way politicians make money—for Chicago, I guess I should classify it as legal way to make money—is writing books. Indeed, almost every president has seen the benefits of such, and many presidential candidates release a book at the beginning of their campaign. Why? B/c as their popularity grows, curious Americans will purchase the book to gain a better understanding of the candidate.
Another thing I noticed with Hillary, is that it is almost impossible to find people on the fence about her. Its either are passionately for Hillary, or passionately opposed. But, finding someone in the middle—its like that person doesn’t even exist.
I guess we can say that is another thing Hillary and Trump have in common. Both of these candidates seem to have people who are very passionately for, and against them. But, the passion and stances both of these candidates elicit has dried up the middle ground.
The last thing I’ll note, is the candidates share one of the most intriguing elements: which is they are main propellers for the other’s campaign. Put in other words, Trump has effectively drived people to Hillary, and Hillary has effectively created the same flock to Trump.
Like Martyrs, they have become idolized for their own cause, while also being crucified by the opposite camp.
That concludes this episode of Millennics on how Chicagoans feel about the leading Presidential candidates. Until Next time.