Music: Crystal Clouds by Phantom Sage
References Made in the Show: Wild Week of Super Tuesday
Welcome back to another episode of Millennics. I’m your host, Jonathan J. Cianfaglione, and today is March 4, 2014. Wild week. We had Super Tuesday, then the Congressional hearing in re Apple v. the FBI, followed by the GOP debate Thursday night. At the same time, I had a furious twitter game going tweeting each event, while engaging with listeners. So, there is a lot to talk about.And, while I’m on this topic. After Super Tuesday, I ended up engaging with a few people on twitter. A few of those folks, expressed concerns about the voter turnout for the democratic party. Their concerns then extended to the conclusion that if “low” turnout continued to the general election, the Dems would likely lose to the GOP nominee.Setting aside the fact that this answer turns on who is the actual nominee for the GOP, let’s just look at the numbers. In the 2008 election, Dems had a record turnout for Super Tuesday, tallying 8.2m votes. This year, though, that number decreased to 5.5m votes. Those numbers were virtually flipped for the GOP. So, the argument goes, if the Dems continue to see “weak” numbers at the polls, this will likely result in a loss.There are many flaws in this conclusion. First, as mentioned, the answer is heavily dependent on who the GOP nominee is—which we’ll talk about in a moment. If its Trump, he just doesn’t have the support. But, someone like Rubio, could give the Dems a run for their money. Second, 2008 was a record-breaking year. It is unsustainable to think that every election is going to churn out record numbers. Third, the necessity to have record-breaking numbers is further mitigated by the broad base the Dems carry over any of the eventual GOP nominees, with the possible exception of Rubio.Here, Dems have more of the vote of women, minorities, and youth. The only voter base they are weak on, is older white folks, but those percentages are still in the 40s. I want to avoid talking about voter bases, since I’ve done that already. Thus, I just wanted to quickly address some concerns. Feel free to visit previous Millennics episodes, where I talk about voter numbers quite a bit. Most notably, listen to Millennics EP4 for overall voter base talk.Hillary rolled on Super Tuesday and will continue to do so. Bernie posted a good effort, but I’m not sure if that effort is good enough as this goes on. Hillary showed she has the vote of minorities by a huge margin. Hillary has also secured women voters; At the same time though, the votes of the Millennials, and older white males seemed to slip to Bernie. But, make no mistake, this isn’t a huge disparity; it is incremental at best, and b/c of that, I don’t see Bernie overcoming the odds.Footnote: I will say, though, Bernie supporters are alive and well on twitter. They really have a force on social media. And, if you didn’t catch it last night, Hillary live tweeted the GOP debate, making her tweets some of the most viral.Because I invoked the “GOP Nominee” reference, let’s talk about that a bit.Donald Trump took the game on Super Tuesday, but not without giving up a few states. Again, though, back to the concept of vote splitting mentioned in the previous two episodes, Donald took about 35% of the votes cast on Super Tuesday in most states. That means that 2/3 of the GOP vote is going elsewhere. So, yes he is winning; but, he has not been able to take the majority of GOP votes cast in any state.If you combine Donald’s actual support base, about 1/3d, with the fact that many, if not all, of the other 2/3ds of the GOP voters will not vote for Donald because of conservative principles … you have a losing nominee.But, if not Donald, then who?? The Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich campaign continue their chatter that there is a path to victory. I’ll tell you right now: that path to victory is almost non-existent. When I look at the numbers of delegates left, and the states left to contest, I don’t see how any of them can actually come out in front of Donald in terms of delegates. Either these campaigns have some unique math formula unknown to the math community, or they just don’t know how to do math.What I do think is very possible, is no one candidate will have the required 1200 delegates needed to take the nominee at the RNC. Put another way, I think their path to victory is a contested RNC, or aka a brokered convention.Here, if no one candidate possesses the requisite 1200+ delegates to take the nomination, the RNC will hold a secondary vote. That vote, will dictate who the actual nominee will be. Many suggest that this will work in the GOP’s favor allowing them to pick the nominee who they see fit to carry the flag of conservatism.In conversations over the past week, some people have taken issue with this arguing: “it wouldn’t be fair,” or “this will, with certainty, break up the GOP.” Both those fall short for me, and here’s why.No one GOP candidate right now has been taking the majority of votes cast. As mentioned, Trump—the front runner—has taken just over a third of the votes cast. So, this still leaves the majority of folks as voting against him. Thus, it would almost seem unfair to not choose someone else.Moving to the fractured GOP argument. News flash: the GOP is already fractured. This is why they keep loosing. You have the establishment in the middle, with the tea party flanking their right, and now Trumpism flanking their left.The GOP needs to go back, reread their post-2012 assessment of what went wrong, and re-engage. Trump has taken everything that post-assessment said went wrong, and inflamed it. How do you win on that? How do you win on a strategy that’s known to completely fail? Mix in the added disdain from many conservatives, and there is just no way to attain victory.The GOP needs to regain control of their party, by separating themselves from people who have diluted the concept of conservatism. In the business world, this is known as re-branding. And, that’s what the GOP needs to do, if it ever wants to win the Presidency again.Alright let’s move away from politics, and turn to policy with Apple and the FBI.I posted an update to the apple iPhone unlocking case earlier in the week. I did so to provide all the new info that has come out. On the post, you’ll be able to find Apple’s motion to vacate, apple’s written testimony to congress, and the congressional hearing itself—which was a grueling 4 hours. Visit logicalpost.net for that post.The hearing was held by the House Judicial Committee, and they seemed very skeptical of the FBI’s intentions. Indeed, with only a few exceptions, many congressman and congresswoman noted that they only saw this as weakening privacy. One congressman went so far as to quote the late Justice Scalia, who said “the constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.” I can’t imagine a more correct statement. As a matter of fact, our entire system works in this way, where we take on risk, for the fruits that democracy and freedom provide.Nonetheless, the FBI was persistent with their request. General Counsel for Apple, clarified many questions, while also directly rebutting comments made by the FBI in their testimony. Apple confirmed that the FBI has injected misnomer on how widespread of an effect this may have, as well as how many phones this can actually work on.A main argument for the FBI is that this will only effect 1 phone, or one generation of phones. Oppositely, though, Apple’s general counsel stated that there is “no distinction between an iPhone 5c” —the phone in question —and the iPhone 6. The tool we are being asked to create will work on any iPhone in use today.” Apple’s general counsel also reiterated that this is about the safety and security of every iPhone user; and, not just the San Bernardino case.I want to note here that a few congressman who seemed to side with FBI, confused what a search is and what compulsion is. The idea that this is just a simple search warrant that Apple refuses to oblige is ludicrous. A search warrant predicates that you have something in your possession, and the search warrant allows the law enforcement to retrieve it, absent consent. But, Apple has nothing in its possession. And, what it did have on the iCloud, has already been given up to the FBI—which the FBI confirmed at the hearing. Further, the phone isn’t even in Apple’s possession. It’s in the FBI’s possession. Thus, this order is a compulsion order, which is much different from a search warrant.Ok, we’ve covered everything for this Millennics episode. I’m off to Chicago and beyond for a few days, where I look forward to meeting people and discussing politics, policy, and law. A few months ago when I visited Chicago, I met Trump supporters in a bar, and was able to ask them questions about what speaks to them. So, that will definitely be on my agenda again this time, and look forward to presenting that on Millennics.I’m your host, Jonathan J. Cianfaglione, and feel free to drop me a line on twitter @jjcianfaglione. Stay connected with Millennics by visiting our website, logicalpost.net, like our Facebook page at Facebook.com/millennics, and subscribe to this podcast.