Tag: US politics

Ivanka: “The secret service should be better at keeping secrets”

Ivanka Trump addresses the false claims that her family denied Secret Service detail access to a restroom in their home.

As the daughter of a Nice™ man, which I am bound by law to call my father, I first became acquainted with Nice™ suffering at a young age. It was during my youth that I learned the schemes and scripts I can use to flip any situation to financially profit from my spiritual and moral vacancy.

Growing up in a household much like a Nice™ museum has cultivated in me a side that always thinks about the feelings of others. I remember spending many hours as a child attributing feelings to people from their facial expressions, and then practicing those expressions on my own face, so that I might convey a convincing laugh or shed a relatable tear in the future.

With my life experience and track record available for reference, I have consistently yielded my immense power for the good of others.

Therefore, it is with a heavy tin heart that I express my deep-as-a-puddle horror, confusion, and embarrassment to learn of the false claims that my husband and I would ever deny the United States Secret Service (USSS) access to a restroom while assigned to protect us.

These claims are just another drop in the ocean of lies made by the crooked left media trying to expose an already showcased broken economic system that profits and permisses people like me.

Firstly, the slanderous article published by The Washington Post falsely stated that our family’s security detail was initially using a porta-potty located on the sidewalk outside of our “6.5 bathroom” home. This is utterly false, and I take great personal insult to this remark. We, the Kushner/Trumps do not have a single lavatory in our home. We’ve never even used one. We’ve never needed to.

Understandably, our Kalorama neighbours felt frustrated by a clunky porta-potty on the sidewalk, keeping them from using the public space. I hold no grudge against anyone who expressed their insult at this obstruction to our peace.

Secondly, this ridiculous article falsely claims that the USSS then began using the facilities at former President Obama’s home, then at former Vice President Pence’s home, as well as local restaurants, in order to resolve the issue. This is simply another tactic to make my family look like a cold-hearted collection of people who refuse to corner off one isolated bathroom, maybe in a garage, where humans can care for themselves with dignity.

Then, and this is where the “story” becomes downright ludicrous, the USSS allegedly began renting an apartment unit in September of 2017 for $3,000 a month, costing taxpayers more than $100,000.

It is simply unconscionable to publish such a low property value estimate for our neighbourhood. This estimate may impact our reputation moving forward; damages we will see for years to come.

And with this, I will make one last remark. It is rare that I share so much with the public, as I am a very private person. I value to the highest degree my privacy and my secrecy. I am truly hurt and offended that the USSS was unsuccessful at keeping this open secret about me — that I treat everyone that is outside the pack as the help.

 

 

Graphic by Taylor Reddam

Categories
Opinions

100 seconds to midnight

What does the Capitol Hill siege mean for us?

It’s 100 seconds to midnight. Last year, the symbolic Doomsday Clock assessed that we are closer to a global man-made catastrophe than ever since the clock’s creation in 1947. The decision was made on account of the climate emergency, rising nuclear tensions, growing distrust in governments all around the world, weaponization of technology… and all this before the whirlwind that was 2020.

The evening of Jan. 6 saw “As a Canadian” trending on Twitter, as so many of us bemocked America’s fate, yet again turning a blind eye to our own run-ins with white supremacy in favour of our ‘it’s not as bad here’ façade. All of a sudden, we forgot that the founder of the Proud Boys is a Canadian man, or that there was a group of Montrealers who organized to participate in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017.

So let’s get this straight: the civil unrest in the US is especially concerning to us as Canadians.

Civil wars are started when a population loses trust in its government, and feels strongly enough that their issues can’t be solved by other means than organizing and taking arms. Statistically, poorer countries are more at risk of entering wars because of their inability to improve the economy, and financial and political inequality also often spark conflict.

Far-right groups have invented all kinds of conspiracies to discredit the media, Democrats, and basically anyone who doesn’t worship Donald Trump. They believe he’s the only one who can properly handle the American economy and save them from the looming threat that is socialism. They have expressed their anger at the dilution of (white) American culture through the apparent invasion of immigrants.

From what we’ve witnessed through their behaviour in recent years, which culminated with the attack on the Capitol, these far-right groups have shown that they aren’t scared — and are in fact proud — to take arms and uphold their views through violence.

On the left, the increasingly vocal contenders for the Black Lives Matter movement have shown their persistence to take to the streets and protest — rain or shine, through tear gas and pandemic. Left-wing groups have also demanded universal healthcare, erasure of student debt, more money towards climate action, and defunding the police and the army in the last few months.

Though I don’t mean to sound like an alarmist, this seems to me a clear recipe for civil war.

Our economy, national security, military strength, foreign relations, everything down to the results of our elections depend on how the United States is feeling. There’s a reason people say “When America sneezes, Canada catches cold.” Nine days after Trump was sworn in as president, six Quebecers were killed in a Sainte-Foy mosque, a clear message that we haven’t been able to escape Trump’s anti-Islam rhetoric.

Many have also wondered how Justin Trudeau will be expected to handle this. Will officially recognizing the Proud Boys as a terrorist group give the federal government reason to increase our military budget? As political unrest becomes inevitably more violent in the US, will it allow our federal government to take preventive, but invasive measures like increased surveillance and armed law enforcement?

For the past two years, I’ve been saying that I predict a civil war in the United States by 2025, and that I’d be surprised if it didn’t happen in the next three years. I think this is the most sinister ‘I told you so’ moment I’ll ever have.

 

Feature graphic by James Fay @jamesfaydraws

Categories
Opinions

Going down the rabbit hole? How we’ve politicized the internet

I first came here for cat videos but now I can’t stop reading about conspiracy theories

The first time I heard of the Among Us game was in an article about how it had become the target of spam attacks led by pro-Trump supporters. This came a few days after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had set up a Twitch stream of the game as a way to incite people to vote for Joe Biden in the then-then-soon-approaching elections.

What used to be an innocent game that gained popularity among bored youngsters during quarantine ended up — yet again — as a battleground for Democrat versus Republican discord. So much for simply wanting to find your secret alien crew member.

Our southern neighbours’ recent presidential race has brought a whirlwind of political discourse in the past few weeks, and understandably so. The American elections are by far the most watched and discussed in the world. But then again, what’s new? Strong reactions to this event are expressed online every four years, does it make a difference that the results are still on everyone’s social media feeds?

As a Political Science major and self-proclaimed politics nerd, I think it’s a good thing that the internet, the most accessible and practical information-gathering tool we have right now, is bringing to people a sense of responsibility for the state of their country. I’m of the opinion that everyone should know their own point of view on political matters because everyone should be involved in how the country is run — in academic terms, this is called a democracy.

I also respect the openness about controversial topics that has sprouted in recent years. Politics are gradually becoming less of a taboo subject at Christmas family reunions — or at least, despite their prohibition, people are initiating these debates anyway.

This being said, the place we once went to to hide and not take anything too seriously has lost that magic. You can’t log onto Twitter or TikTok anymore just to watch lighthearted content and take your mind off things without running into a political feud. Every corner of the internet has been labeled with a political affiliation.

Many made fun of Ben Shapiro over the summer when he expressed discontent about sports being so politicized he didn’t even want to watch it anymore. “My place of comfort has been removed from me,” he said, raising many a mocking comment noting this as the definition for a safe space, a concept he has repeatedly antagonized in the past.

Shapiro is a controversial figure, and though I don’t necessarily ascribe to his political sentiments, I do feel the same way about having eroded what apolitical space we had. Now, I’m not certain if this is because people themselves turn even the most aleatoric content into part of a debate, or if simply more of our world is becoming political.

For instance, Shapiro talks about not wanting to read Sports Illustrated because of Caitlin Jenner’s feature on the cover, but she didn’t need to be politicized. She seems to me to be even more relevant to the world of sports than any of the models who adorn the pages of the magazine’s annual Swimsuit issue.

This is how a vicious cycle is formed: we constantly see political debates about the rights of trans women, so much so that we attribute this identity to a political leaning.

I feel for the kids who are growing up only knowing the internet, a platform the world is increasingly dependent on, as a tense and hostile place, and whose quarantine pastimes get turned into presidential debate stages. They might not ever know the simple times of cat videos, fail compilations, and the ice bucket challenge.

 

Feature graphic by Taylor Reddam

The significant influence of white supremacists on the U.S. election

Trump could count on the strong support of white supremacists in his race for the White House.

America has become increasingly polarized in the last four years, as Donald Trump has been more determined than ever to build an important electoral base to win again in 2020.

Trump has used a divisive rhetoric since the beginning of his campaign for the 2016 election. He shocked the general public with his failure to condemn far-right movements during various tragic events that took place in America during his presidency.

“I think there is blame on both sides,” Trump said in 2017 after the murder of an anti-racist protester by a neo-Nazi during the white-supremacist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

More recently, during the first presidential debate against Joe Biden, Trump did not strongly condemn white supremacist groups even when Joe Biden mentioned the Proud Boys.

During the debate Trump called on the far-right extremists to “Stand back and stand by.”

Dr. Barbara Perry, Director of Ontario Tech University’s Centre of Hate, Bias and Extremism explained that people have interpreted this message as a call to arms for the far-right.

“He wasn’t talking just to the Proud Boys when he said ‘stand back and stand by,’ he was talking to the movement as a whole, that they should be ready to defend him should he lose and come to his aid,” she said.

During the 2020 election, Trump was aware of the support he had from the far-right, who have benefited from having a president who shares values with them.

“The far-right was looking for an anti-Obama,” said Dr. Perry. “They were ready for a Trump.”

His presidency made far-right movements grow not only in the United States but also across the border in Canada.

“It affected both sides of the border quite dramatically in terms of absolute growth in the number of [far-right] groups and in the number of people coming to these groups,” said Dr. Perry.

As soon as Trump asserted his desire for re-election, white supremacist movements supported him during his campaign and were especially active on social media.

Dr. Perry explained that the promotion of conspiracy ideologies by these groups on social media can influence some American voters. Movements like QAnon, greatly influenced by the pandemic, have therefore taken an important place in support of Trump’s re-election.

On social media, this promotion was also supported by the emergence of far-right Canadians under the name “Canadians for Trump.”

“In response to the Proud Boys incident at the debate, there were Canadian groups who were posting ‘we are also ready to come to your defence,’” said Dr. Perry.

“We are going to see some [far-right] mobilizations … whether Trump loses or wins,” she said. “They will be there locally, but I suspect there will be convoys to D.C. as well to defend him.”

 

Feature graphic by Taylor Reddam

Categories
Briefs News

World in brief: Impeachment, leaders at the UN and rescued Nigerian captives

A formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump was officially made on Sept. 24. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the inquiry will investigate whether the President abused his presidential powers and sought help from the Ukraine government to undermine Democratic candidate Joe Biden. The Associated Press reported that the allegations came after a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which you can hear Trump asking for help finding incriminating actions by Biden’s son.

“The president must be held accountable,” Pelosi said. “No one is above the law.”

Global leaders met on Sept. 23, in New York for the 74th session of the UN General Assembly. Discussions on the climate crisis and a possible armed conflict between the United States and Iran were among the headlines. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson stood against the U.S. and Iran conflict, urging them to resume negotiations over the ongoing tensions in the Middle East, reported Reuters. Greta Thunberg also made a heartfelt plea, but towards the inactions of leaders regarding the climate crisis. She arguably dropped her most powerful quote yet with “how dare you” in a video that was shared more than 50,000 times.

On Sept. 26, more than 300 captives were rescued from a building that housed an Islamic school in northern Nigeria. Many reports described the survivors mostly as children, boys aged around 5 to their late teens, walking in chains. Police declared that seven people, teachers at the school, were arrested in the raid. Such schools are known to be abusive, yet parents lacking financial resources often opt to leave their children in the hands of the school boards. CBC reported that earlier this year, Nigeria President Muhammadu Buhari, himself a Muslim, was planning to eventually ban the schools. It is still unclear how long the children were retained.

 

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Categories
Opinions

Gun enthusiasts, beware

Image via Flickr
Image via Flickr

April 20, 1999: Columbine High School, Colorado. 13 deaths. April 16, 2007: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 32 deaths. December 14, 2012: Sandy Hook Elementary. 26 deaths. How many more lives must be lost because of gun violence before the U.S. government takes action?

In 2011, 8,583 people in the United States were killed with firearms. This statistic is hardly surprising for a nation with the highest gun ownership rate in the world, with 89 guns for every 100 Americans. American history is no stranger to gun violence. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings in the United States, 25 of them occurring since 2006. In 2012 alone, 151 people were either killed or injured in a mass shooting.

Year after year, Congress continues to ignore the problem. President Barack Obama has promised to make gun control a priority during the first year of his second term. He has already assembled a task force, headed by Vice President Joe Biden, to come up with some solution to end tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting.

However, the President has a tough battle ahead. The National Rifle Association has spearheaded efforts against gun control, and with approximately 90 per cent of its political contributions going to the Republican Party, the Republicans will in no way want to risk their relationship with such a major benefactor. The party will likely dig in their heels as much as possible (as is almost tradition in American politics), and that lack of action is probably the biggest roadblock in America’s fight against gun violence.

There are a lot of excuses that are thrown around in the argument against stricter gun regulations. Some say guns keep people safe, and that restricting gun laws will make it harder for innocent people to defend themselves. After the tragedy at Sandy Hook, it was even suggested that teachers be trained and have weapons at schools in order to combat a gunman. However, as the shooting at Fort Hood Military Base on Nov. 5, 2009 showed, even against armed, trained military men, a shooter can do a lot of damage. In that shooting, 13 people were killed and 29 others were injured.

Another argument used by gun enthusiasts is the protection of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Many people in the United States take that to mean the government has no right to organize any form of gun control, but in the context of the amendment, it seems more likely that the founding fathers and writers of the Constitution related the right to bear arms with being a member of a militia.

So much evidence has piled up in favour of gun control, it’s not clear how long-gun enthusiasts will be able to keep up this fight. One convincing example of the positive effects gun control has is evident in Japan, a country which has implemented strict laws and many requirements for gun ownership, including a rigorous written exam. Japan has had a large amount of success in keeping gun violence low, and because of their gun laws, they have the second lowest murder rate in the world. While the exact techniques Japan uses may not be effective in the United States due to the difference in population, the overall concept should help curb American gun violence.

It may be too late for the victims of Sandy Hook Elementary, or the many others who have met the same tragic fate, but we can honour their memory by doing everything in our power to stop these tragedies. Obama has his sights set on assault weapons, and while that’s going to help, the United States needs to focus on improving gun registration techniques and making it harder for people to acquire weapons. The harder it is to obtain a firearm, the less tragedies will occur. The time to act isn’t after the next school shooting — it’s now.

Categories
Opinions

Did Petraeus betray us?

Former Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus. Image via Flickr.

On Nov. 9, 2012, Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus resigned from his position after the Federal Bureau of Investigation exposed an extramarital affair he was having with writer and biographer Paula Broadwell.

Some would say the punishment for his actions was fair because his character and leadership skills can no longer be trusted, and the reputation of the organization must be upheld. But what gives people the right to probe into a man’s private life, expose it to the public, allow this event alone define him and then force him to resign?

A man’s personal feelings are his own private business. Some disagree, saying that his morals and leadership ability is everyone’s business. However, I say that we are all human, we all make mistakes, and no leader is without flaws. Petraeus has no previous reputation of being a womanizer, liar or a cheater, therefore one affair should not affect his credibility, especially if we do not know the circumstances of his situation. I am in no way, shape or form condoning what he has done to his marriage, but at the same time I do not believe a leader should be deemed immoral and incompetent simply because he has fallen for two women.

Glenn Rowe, strategic leadership teacher at the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario, told CBC that “in today’s world, we’re looking for people of character to be leaders.” This statement is certainly true for a man or woman who is the leader of a country, a religious group, or any other organization that is in need of a guide who can bring hope and high moral standards to a population.

In the case of the CIA, their primary task is intelligence gathering, which has nothing to do with leading people outside of the organization. Petraeus has a PhD and has served in the U.S military his whole life and was deemed the most prominent military man post-9/11. If he is the best candidate for the job and does it effectively, then his private life should not be a factor in deciding whether he retains his position or not, especially if his private life has nothing to do with it.

If a leader of an organization has not led the institution astray, I do not think they should immediately lose their job over a scandal that has nothing to do with their job. Even leaders make mistakes, and when they do, it does not mean that they should automatically be classified as morally compromised.

I can think of countless examples of leaders in the past with much higher positions than Petraeus who have embarrassed themselves publically or been part of a sex scandal, and still kept their jobs. Petraeus has proved himself to be competent, and therefore should be re-instated as the head of the CIA.

Categories
Opinions

Puff, puff, pass the ballot

Graphic by Phil Waheed.
Graphic by Phil Waheed.

The tides are changing in the United States. Along with the re-election of President Barack Obama, Washington and Colorado have also voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use.

This huge step for American culture is facing both praise and criticism from the outside, but I think the legalization of marijuana is ultimately a move that, if done effectively, can have a very positive effect.

Why, then, is marijuana still illegal in the rest of the United States? Maybe it’s because marijuana is a so-called gateway drug? It makes sense that the government doesn’t want citizens experimenting with harmful substances.

Too bad this notion is totally inaccurate. According to The National Academy of Sciences, “there is no conclusive evidence that the … effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.”

Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has reported that about 76 million adults have tried marijuana and did not become regular marijuana users or go on to try any other drugs. So, that can’t be it.

Maybe the American government is afraid that if they legalize marijuana it will become more mainstream. Perhaps lawmakers feel that the only way to curb the use of the drug is to put in place firm laws against it, but that’s another misconception.

According to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse’s national working group on addictions, most marijuana users believe their use will go undetected, so fear of legal punishment doesn’t act as an effective deterrent. No matter how strict the laws, people have and will continue to use the drug.

A study by the California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse reinforces that “the reduction in penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use does not appear to [be] a factor in people’s decision to use or not use the drug.” So, that can’t be it either.

The bottom line here is that the ‘war on drugs’ cost the United States at the federal level $15 billion in 2010. On top of that, one person every 19 seconds is arrested for violating a drug law. In a country desperate to climb out of a deficit and with the highest incarceration rate in the world (730 per 100,000 people), legalization of marijuana helps take care of both problems.

On the subject of money, the U.S. could make a lot of money from regulating marijuana use, and the longer it remains unregulated, the more money is lost. Harvard University economics professor, Jeffrey Miron, told CNN that if marijuana was taxed at similar rates as tobacco and alcohol, the United States would save about $14 billion per year, based on the decrease in spending against it as well as the taxation of it.

As far as the arrest record goes, the FBI has reported that 52 per cent of drug arrests are marijuana related. That makes for a total of over 850,000 arrests in 2010 according to the FBI. Keeping these people out of jail will have a noticeable effect on the taxpayer’s money. It’s also worth mentioning that out of the 52 per cent, 88 per cent of those arrests are for possession.

And that’s not even mentioning the positive effects marijuana can have medically. The American Medical Association was very vocal against the initial ban of the drug, which had been used for medicinal purposes for more than 5,000 years. Currently, more than 60 American and international medical organizations support the use of medical marijuana.

And yet, despite all of this evidence in its favour, marijuana continues to be illegal in most of the United States.

Much like the reversal of prohibition, this opposition against marijuana is going to give in eventually. Now is the time for the American federal government to step up and make this happen. Their constituents and their wallets will thank them for it.

Categories
Opinions

Obama vs. Romney: Cracking down on the presidential debates

Graphic by Phil Waheed.
Graphic by Phil Waheed.

In a democracy, one would hope that an election debate would serve to further enlighten and inform the electorate.

Unfortunately, the U.S. presidential debates served more as populist entertainment than as a crash-course for undecided voters.

The second debate between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney took place at Hofstra University in New York.

In an interesting twist the debate was modeled on a “town hall” meeting with the audience asking the presidential candidates questions. The questions were all pre-approved by moderator Candy Crowley of CNN, making it a bit more controlled than an actual town hall meeting.

During the debate promises were made, fingers were pointed and the undecided voters who participated in the event were repeatedly thanked for their “important” and “great” questions.

Both candidates did well in the debate with neither making any particularly damaging mistakes.

Obama, whose lackluster performance in the first debate shocked many pundits and supporters, was back to his old self in this one. He was more confrontational with Romney, accusing him repeatedly of saying things that were “not true.”

According to USA Today, Obama claimed Romney was lying so many times during the debate, that Taggart Romney (eldest son of the Republican candidate) wanted to “rush down to the debate stage and take a swing at him.” If this contemplation of violence doesn’t demonstrate the excessively hyper-partisan nature of American politics, I don’t know what does.

Romney held his own without his son coming to his defense. As in the first debate, the former governor of Massachusetts looked confident and spoke with conviction. He scored political points by attacking Obama’s record on job creation and his management of the economy.

Needless to say, the fiery debate made for good political theatre.

Ultimately the biggest winners in last Tuesday’s debate were the fact-checkers, who were gainfully employed dispelling the many half-truths being spewed out by the presidential candidates. If viewers thought they would be more informed by the end of the night, they were sorely mistaken.

Obama claimed he could spend more on social programs by cutting military expenditures on wars in the Middle East. Unless Obama can multiply $100 bills like magic, there’s no way that cutbacks can save money. The United States has been borrowing money in order to finance the military; ending overseas conflict will not necessarily mean more money to spend on Medicare and public schools.

Romney tried to score points among women voters by saying he led one of the most gender-diverse cabinets in his state’s history. The presidential candidate said he wanted more women in his cabinet and had looked through “whole binders full of women” for female candidates to appoint to various positions. While he was patting himself on the back, The Christian Science Monitor was reporting that it was the nonpartisan Massachusetts Government Appointments Project that instigated this process in order to finally end the underrepresentation of women in government.

Questions also remain about the viability of Romney’s plan to cut taxes, which the Republican candidate touted during the debate. The Washington-based Tax Policy Center essentially said in a study that his numbers don’t add up.

That’s not to say that there weren’t ounces of truth mixed in with the doublespeak, but there was still an incredible amount of untruths and half-truths in the debate.

It’s disappointing that third-party candidates don’t receive nearly any coverage in the mainstream press. The main third party running is the Green Party run by Dr. Jill Stein. As long as mainstream debates do not allow third-party candidates in, voters will have fewer choices and American democracy will suffer for it.

Even though the American electoral process has its flaws, there is still one thing from the U.S. debates that Canada should strive to emulate in its own leaders’ debates next election. It quickly becomes apparent, after watching the presidential debates, that Canada should have multiple election debates like the United States has.

During the 2011 federal election campaign, we only had two leaders’ debates, and because one was in English and the other was in French, they covered many of the same topics just in different languages. Neither debate managed to get past general questions about governance or the economy to inquire about specific issues.

In Canadian debates, we’d probably never see questions about women’s issues or about how a leader would differentiate himself or herself from another. (Romney was asked, “how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?”)

While there are some things we, as Canadians, can learn from the U.S. presidential debates, we should also count ourselves lucky for the vibrancy of our democracy and for the diversity of voices present in our political landscape.

As for Americans, they need to wake up and realize that there’s a wealth of other options out there beyond the confines of the two major parties.

Categories
Opinions

Mitt Romney: American idiot?

On Monday, American Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made off-the-cuff remarks at a secretly taped California fundraiser that raised a lot of eyebrows on multiple key issues.

In the video, he claimed Palestinians had “no interest whatsoever” in a two-state peace process. He also also claimed that 47 per cent of all Americans “believe they are victims,” and will vote for President Barack Obama no matter what.

“My job is not to worry about them,” Romney stated. “I’ll never convince them.”

One of Romney’s most dooming flaws in his campaign is the perception of insulation; this is a man who lives his private life vastly different than the rest of the American public, but also seems to make little genuine effort to connect with groups he may have slim chances of winning over. But what would be the point in campaigning in demographic regions where you’re sure to lose by a landslide?

Look back to the campaign of George W. Bush; many credit his success on the fact that he would campaign in poor, inner-city neighbourhoods around Philadelphia, Miami and other large, typically-democratic cities.

Although these events mostly served as a mere photo opportunity, the media coverage of him would dig into the hearts of the suburban, middle-class and politically independent families inside of those same cities to successfully counter the thrashing a normal Republican candidate might usually suffer.

Romney’s team, universally described as one of the most inept in modern American history, has failed to target those audiences, and it’s showing in the polls. In the most recent polls, the first after his remarks were made public, Obama is trouncing Romney in several key states, but two states in specific, spell doom for Romney’s campaign: Ohio and Florida.

These two states make up a total of 47 electoral delegates—almost 10 per cent of the national total. Fox News’ most recent poll (a poll that tends to lean conservative) has Obama up in Ohio with 49 per cent compared a mere 42 per cent for Romney. The same Fox News poll has Obama up at 49 per cent in Florida, against Romney’s 45 per cent.

There really is no way of understating this; if the election were held for Ohio and Florida a day early and Obama were to win both states, this election would be over. It would take some sort of abnormal political miracle for Romney to lose Florida and Ohio, and still take the White House.

He would need to win every other swing state in contention, which is looking nearly impossible, since he is down six points in North Carolina (once written off by many Democrats as President Obama took a stand in support of same-sex marriage a couple months ago), by 12 points in Pennsylvania, and even by a point in Missouri, usually considered Republican territory according to Rasmussen Reports.

So how does this translate into real life opinions of average swing voters?

“I’ve definitely noticed between those of my friends who tend to be more Republican-leaning, they haven’t been showing as much vocal support [for Romney] as they once were,” said Alex Jordan, a student at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Colorado has recently been another hotly contested swing state, yet Romney has managed to stay relatively strong, leading Obama by two points.

If Romney hopes to take the White House, he’s going to need to undergo a few major changes. An overhaul of campaign staff, revitalized targeting of ads, and trying to get the country to personally embrace the candidate—getting out “More Mitt,” as they commonly refer to it, does nothing if the American public won’t even consider him for the White House based on his inflammatory remarks.

So maybe Romney was right after all. Maybe he was doomed from the beginning, but now it’s becoming clearer, that it’s nothing more than the fault of his closed-minded opinions and big mouth.

Exit mobile version