Who could be the first female president

We did not make history by electing the first female president in 2016.  Having experienced strong female leaders in my career, too many to mention, I have no doubt that a woman will one day win the presidency.  It will probably be soon.

Hillary Rodham Clinton just turned 69 years old.  If she were to run and get elected in 2020, she would become the oldest person to be elected president for the first time at age 73, beating Donald Trump by about 3 years and Ronald Reagan by just a few days longer than Trump.  Sooner or later, her age and health will catch up to her.  It is likely that Hillary will not run for political office again.

Here is a list of women who could, perhaps as soon as 2020, win the White House:

The governorship of a state is the most common path the the White House, here are the current female governors.  There are six currently serving, about half and half from each party.

Susana Martinez, Republican, New Mexico, term expires in 2019 and she is not eligible to run again
Mary Fallin, Republican, Oklahoma, term expires in 2019 and she is not eligible to run again
Kate Brown, Democrat, Oregon
Gina Raimondo, Democrat, Rhode Island
Nikki Haley, Republican, South Carolina, term expires in 2019 and she is not eligible to run again
Muriel Brewster, Democrat, DC, which has just voted to accept statehood, however it still needs to be approved by Congress and signed into law by the President.

The US Senate is a path that many have used to become the president.  Here is a list of female US Senators in the 115th Congress.

Lisa Murkowski, Republican, Alaska, just re-elected, term up in 2022
Diane Feinstein, Democrat, California, term up in 2018
Kamala Harris, Democrat, California, just elected, term up in 2022
Mazie Horono, Democrat, Hawaii, term up in 2018
Joni Ernst, Republican, Iowa, term up in 2020
Susan Collins, Republican, Maine, term up in 2020
Elizabeth Warren, Democrat, Massachusetts, term up in 2018
Debbie Stebenow, Democrat, Michigan, term up in 2018
Amy Klobuchar, Democrat, Minnesota, term up in 2018
Clair McCaskill, Democrat, Missouri, term up in 2018
Deb Fisher, Republican, Nebraska, term up in 2018
Maggie Hassan, Democrat, New Hampshire, just elected, term up in 2022

Jeane Shaheen, Democrat, New Hampshire, term up in 2020

Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat, New York, term up in 2018

Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat, North Dakota, term up in 2018

Patty Murray, Democrat, Washington, just re-elected, term up in 2022

Maria Cantwell, Democrat, Washington, term up in 2018

Shelly Moore Capito, Republican, West Virginia

Tammy Baldwin, Democrat, Wisconsin, term up in 2018

Having a term in an off-year, such as after the 2018 mid-term election.  This will give that person two years to focus on the White House, without having another job to do.

List of female CEOs.  Now that Donald Trump has opened the door for a corporate CEO to become president, the next person to step through it might be a woman.  I do not know the political affiliation of any of these women.  These women are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.

Mary Barra, General Motors (Possible Democrat)
Heather Bresch, Mylan, Inc (Democrat)
Ursula Burns, Xerox (Democrat)
Debra Cafaro, Ventas (Possible Democrat)
Susan Cameron, Reynolds (Possible Republican)
Safra Catz, Oracle (Possible Democrat)
Lynn Good, Duke Energy (Political Leanings Unknown)
Shira Goodman, Staples (Possible Democrat)
Tricia Griffith, The Progressive (Political Leanings Unknown)
Marilyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin (Possible Republican)
Vicki Hollub, Occidental Petroleum (Political Leanings Unknown)
Gracia Martore, TEGNA (Possible Democrat)
Marissa Mayer, Yahoo (Possible Democrat)
Beth Mooney, Key (Possible Republican)
Denise Morrison, Campbell Soup (Possible Democrat)
Indra Nooyi, Pepsico (Possible Democrat, but has been critical of policies of both parties.)
Phebe Novakovic, General Dynamics (Political Leanings Unknown)
Patricia Poppe, CMS Energy (Political Leanings Unknown)
Debra Reed, Sempra Energy (Possible Republican)
Barbara Rentler, Ross Stores (Political Leanings Unknown)
Virginia Rometty, IBM (Possible Democrat)
Irene Rosenfeld, Mondelez International (Political Leanings Unknown--Criticized by both political parties, likely a Libertarian.)
Meg Whitman, HP (Possible Republican)

Probably, the first female president in on one of the lists above  Many of these women, whether you like what they have accomplished or not, have accomplished as much or even much more that Hillary Rodham Clinton ever did.  They just do not have the name recognition right now.  Name recognition is why one of the above women have not yet run for the presidency.  Perhaps one of these women will get the name recognition they need to run in 2020.

Congratulations to President-Elect Donald Trump

As the Election of 2012 was beginning to ramp up, Donald J. Trump, a man who had no political experience was beginning to explore the idea of running for the presidency.  At that time, I wrote that he would divide the Republican party.  That turned out to be true in 2016.  Yes, in spite of that party division, and all other odds, Donald Trump succeeded to become the first person to became elected president who had neither served before in public office nor rose to the rank of Major General in the United States military.  If Trump is successful, he opens the doors for many with a background like his to run for this office in the future.  Perhaps the change the country needs.

I saw data in my office before I finished work for the day.  Exit polling in the evening was showing an interesting trend.  In my house were expecting a Clinton landslide, even though none of us voted for her.  However, leaked evening exit polls that I saw began to show that Trump had a chance in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and even Pennsylvania.  It was beginning to look like Trump had a chance as returns began to come in.  If Trump could get two of those states, he may have a chance to win.  It turns out that about 3:00 ET, 1:00 MT, that Trump was declared the winner in Pennsylvania and the winner of the election after getting all of these states.

Trump did not win the traditional republican way...family values, points of light, etc.  He built a new coalition.  He gathered together people that both parties forgot and left behind.  Those whom the Democrats called deplorable and those whom Republicans simply ignored.  He knew something that others forgot, or didn't understand, and took advantage.

I won't go into all of the reasons why Trump won.  It will take academics years to understand what happened.  I do believe we just witnessed a counter-revolution.  I hope it remains peaceful.  It seems that his election has brought some unity to the Republican party, at least for now.

I will say that there is one thing I have learned.  I have to change my thinking.  It seems that too many of us think that there are only two kinds of people, those who think like I do and those who should think like I do.  That kind of thinking needs to change.  Not all problems are simple and mathematical and can be resolved with logic.  Some problems take a coalition of people who think very differently to solve.

Clinton may still win the popular vote.  However, keep in mind that as of now, instead of having one big election, we have 50 small ones.  This is only the 5th time in history that this will happen.  If Utah and Idaho had gone to McMullin, we would still be fighting this battle.  Instead, we get a quick and peaceful transition.  In a future election, it may be the Republicans that win the popular vote, with the Democrats winning the electoral college.  Remember, our government is a coalition, not a pure democracy.  Our founders wanted it that way.

Good luck with the new coalition, President Trump.

Why Evan McMullin is Not a Smart Alternative to Trump

Outside of Utah, very few people have heard of presidential candidate Evan McMullin.  Here is a link to his Wikipedia page.  In Utah he is polling at 22% where Trump and Clinton are tied at 26% where 12% are undecided.  His popularity is surging, especially among Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) who are looking for a Moral alternative to Donald Trump, who is suffering in the polls due to his sex-life revelations.

There is only one argument you need to look away from McMullin as a candidate, it's his experience.  Yes, he's had a job.  He has been a CIA operative.  He's also had experience as an adviser to Congress.  That's it.

It's as if the organization, Better for America, couldn't actually find anyone better for America, and settled for this guy.

Would you hire someone who has never changed a diaper to babysit your children?  That is basically what Evan McMullin represents.  He's the good kid around the corner that all of the neighborhood kids look up to.  That doesn't make him a worthy candidate.

The Presidency of the United State is a tough job.  The lives of 385,000,000 souls hang in the balance.  Experience is important.  It's not the place to learn on the job.

Every small business owner in America has more executive experience than Evan McMullin and is therefore more qualified.

Utahans are falling for this because McMullin represents a value vote.  But, that does not mean its a smart vote.

If you are looking for a value vote, write in Mitt Romney, or Jon Huntsman, or someone who you think represents values, but also has the experience needed to do a good job.  There are probably more than 200 men and women who would make better write-in candidates.

Not just anyone can be president and not just anyone should be.  Evan McMullin is just anyone.  He's a good guy, but he's just anyone.

Its less than one month from Election Day.  Let's take a moment to breath deeply and think before we make the wrong choice.

Trump Comments on Women

Donald Trump...we knew what we were getting when we selected him as our nominee.  Republicans as a whole deserve this.  That being said, let me clue the world in on a few things.

In the locker room, when there are no women around, men speak differently.  I'm certain that women speak differently when there are no men around, although I'm not certain of the language.  You all know what I am talking about.  If you do not, then consider yourself lucky.  However, Donald Trump's remarks go beyond either disgusting locker room talk.  Sure, its the same language, but is it not the same type of talk.  He justifies abuse and adultery.  Most locker room talk never goes to that level.

He is giving advice on one of the advantages to being a celebrity when it comes to taking advantage of the opposite sex.  This is a privilege accorded to so few outside of the world of celebrities.  As bad as they are, I would like to find some male who has not made similar remarks outside of the rich and famous who would get a away with comments like that.  Remember what we all thought of Bill Cosby a few years ago?  We simply don't know how those who are on the public pedestal talk like when they are in the locker room.  I'm not shocked by what I heard, just disgusted.

I do not wish to excuse Donald Trump, nor do I wish to endorse him.  Vote for the person who you feel represents you the best, even if it leads to Hillary Clinton winning by a landslide...which it will as long as Trump remains in the race.  I am calling for the presidential election process to be reformed to prevent someone like Donald Trump, who knows how to manipulate the media to his advantage, from ever again becoming a major party nominee.

First and foremost, we need more faith in conventions.  For the most part, the convention delegates have put in time and effort it takes to produce an acceptable nominee.  Today the delegates are called on to rubber stamp what has been produced in the primaries.

Second, we put way too much stalk in the early primaries.  Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't be the states that narrow down the field.  Between the two, there are only 10 electoral votes.  I think we can have the primaries take place nationally, or have a calendar reduced to 4-12 weeks.  Try this out for a primary schedule:

Week 1: States with 4 or fewer electoral votes: Alaska, DC, Delaware, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

Week 2: States with 5 to 7 electoral votes: Nebraska, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Connecticut, Oklahoma and Oregon.

Week 3: States with 8 to 12 electoral votes: Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, South Carolina, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Washington.

Week 4: States with more than 13 electoral votes: Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas and California.

Third, no winner take all primaries.

Fourth, end the "Utah" rule.  The Utah rules states that if the candidate that the state's delegates are pledged to is no longer in the race, the state's delegates will go to the candidate with the most votes.  It should be that if the candidates that the state's delegates are pledged to is no longer in the race, the delegates are free to vote their conscious.

Fifth, suspending the campaign is not dropping out.  If a candidate suspends the campaign, they are still an active candidate at the convention.  The only way their campaign ends is if they drop from the race.

If someone is so totally awesome that they get to the convention as the sole candidate, the convention can be a coronation.  Otherwise, the delegates will have the final say.  Remember that Donald Trump won 60% of the delegates with only 40% of the votes.  With these rules, likely there would have been four or five active candidates going into the convention.  Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and possibly either Jeb Bush or Ben Carson.  In the end, we may have ended up with either Marco Rubio or John Kasich as the final GOP nominee.

When will it be time for Trump to quit.

If you ask me about the prospects of a Trump presidency, I will answer the way a friend of mine did recently.  Even after sitting on the bottom of the ocean for over a century, the Titanic's pools are still full.  In other words, it is difficult to see the problem when you are not looking at the whole picture.  The country isn't only run by the president, but congress and the courts as well.  I would advise everyone to look at the whole picture before casting votes this summer.

Asking Donald Trump to quit is not really a move that will put a Republican in the White House.  Even though it could work.  It also may help the GOP avoid a certain disaster  That disaster would be the loss of a majority in the houses of Congress as well as a loss in the electoral college.

Question 1: Does this mean that the GOP is conceding the presidency?  Hardly.  If you are in the early innings of a baseball game, and your starting pitcher is giving up home run after home run, you have a choice.  You can leave the poor pitcher on the mound a few more innings, or bring someone else in who can reach the plate, staunch the bleeding and give you a chance to win the game.  If Trump is truly a certain loss, and will bring members of congress down with him, better give someone who has a slightly better chance a shot.

Question 2: Who would replace Donald Trump on the ticket?  Most likely the chosen VP candidate, Mike Pence would be asked to take up the torch in Donald Trump's place.  Governor Pence would then choose a running mate.  If Mike Pence declines, then the National Committee would have to pick a new Presidential candidate and that person would select a running mate.

Question 2a:  What about Ted Cruz or the others who lost to Trump in the primary?  There would be a certain known risk to doing so.  If Ted Cruz or any of the others couldn't beat Trump in a primary election, what are their chances against Clinton?  Even if they polled better against Clinton in some polls than Trump did, the risk of losing is far greater.

Let's compare this to the Super Bowl.  In the AFC Championship game, the Patriots have defeated the Colts 45-3.  But the next day, it is found out that the Patriots have cheated and are declared ineligible for the Super Bowl.  You can put the Colts in the Super Bowl against the Seahawks, but it does not man that the Colts would be more favored to win than the Patriots would have been.

Also remember that politics isn't sports.  The winner of the Super Bowl is really inconsequential to your daily life.  The winner of the elections this fall is.

Question 3: Is there a risk to all of this?  Absolutely.  I will remind you that the majority of those who cared enough to vote in the primary election chose Donald Trump.  If there was any inkling that someone other than Trump brought this on, it will backfire.  Many of those voters could turn on the GOP, vote for Hillary, or a third party candidate or not vote at all.  Having Trump may negatively affect the chances of GOP candidates in other races in November.  Having Trump step aside may make things worse.

Question 4: If Mike Pence doesn't want to pick up the baton and be the GOP presidential candidate, who would be the likely choice.  That is an interesting question.  Some might think the party would then turn to Ted Cruz or someone else who dropped out of the GOP race before Trump secured the nomination.  However, keep in mind that none of these men and women were strong enough to defeat Trump in the primaries.  That fact would be too much of a liability, and the Hillary campaign would do nothing but, for lack of a better term, trump it up.  You really would want to get someone else.  But no one else would have the name recognition to build up a strong enough campaign to defeat Hillary, except for Mitt Romney or John McCain.  You probably already know how well that will go over.  The real choice is for Mike Pence to pick up the baton for Trump if does not wish to continue.

There is probably one person who has the name recognition to do it, but I doubt she will.

Question 5: Has this ever happened before?  No.  In 1972, George McGovern had to replace his original choice for VP, Thomas Eagleton with Ambassador Sergeant Schriver, who most people today would know as Arnold Schwarzenegger's late Father-in-Law, or the late brother-in-law of John and Robert Kennedy.

Question 6: What difference does it make?  Trump may likely lose.  If Trump steps aside, the replacement is likely to lose.  The difference is that Trump will no longer be around to drag down the members of the Republican Party running for seats in Congress.  Thus, the only reason for Trump to step aside from a big picture standpoint is if he is going to take down enough members of Congress with him to cost the GOP their majority.

Remember in all of this, even if it looks like Hillary Clinton will win in a landslide, it does not mean that Trump should quit.  If Donald Trump is going to take Congress down with him, then it is time for The Donald to quit.

Who should really be the nominees.

The GOP problem, Donald Trump.  The real reason why Trump is a liability to the party is not because of his mouth.  If being a smart-a@@ was a presidential dis-qualifier, then Andrew Jackson, US Grant and many others would never have sat behind the big desk in the oval office.  The real reason Trump is a liability is because he doesn't have a presidential resume.

And yes, I can see all of those Trump supporters rolling their eyes for the umpteenth time as they read this.  If you you are rolling your eyes at this suggestion then you do not understand history.  The constitution says that you only have to be 35 years of age and a natural-born citizen. However, no one has ever been elected who has not served in one of the following offices: A military officer with the rank of O-2 or higher, Vice President, Cabinet Secretary, State Governor, US Senator or US House of Representatives.  We have never elected anyone outside of one of these offices.  Many have tried, and they have all failed.  If you are a Trump supporter, you want Hillary and her baggage on the other side of the ballot.

Unfortunately, out of all of the candidates who stepped up to run on the GOP side, none had good credentials.  They were qualified, but their negatives where all too high.  Therefore, I would suggest none-of-the above for the GOP and put forward a new compromise candidate.

Here is your GOP Presidential Candidate for 2016.  South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.  Is she perfect?  No.  Opportunity doesn't come in a neatly-wrapped Christmas gift.  She can get the job done, just like she has in North Carolina.

For her running mate, I would choose someone from the rust belt to balance the ticket.  Someone from a state that the GOP must win in order to win the elction.  Someone who may not be a Tea Party conservative, but is not in their cross-hairs either.  I would choose Pennsylvania Congressman Charlie Dent

The Hailey-Dent ticket for 2016.  A winning combination?

The Dems have more motivation to replace Hillary.  If they have a nominee without any baggage, they are bound to trump Trump in a way that Clinton no longer can.  But they have to nominate someone who will be perceived as a Obama ally.  I have just the nominee for them.

That is Maggie Hassan.  She is the only female two-term democratic party governor is the US.  She is from the very important state of New Hampshire.  She is a lawyer, went to Brown and has experience in the medical industry...not as a doctor, but as an attorney.

The VP pick, to balance the Democratic ticket.  

  

Those of us from the West will recognize Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper.  Probably the most progressive governor in the West since Brigham Young.

Hassan-Hickenlooper doesn't exactly roll off your tongue.  But it could be the ticket the Democrats need in 2016.

Even with the negatives that Trump and Clinton have this election, the chances of either one of them getting replaced are nil.  But I have to put this post out there.  Nothing will happen if people don't begin to think about good alternatives.  We all know Trump has an ego big enough to fill the Grand Canyon.  Hillary has a huge entitlement issue, meaning that she thinks that she is entitled to be the first female president.  Neither one of them has the humility to step aside and neither party has the balls to stand up to presumptive candidates (and their supporters) and force them to step aside.

These women and men here do not have the negative baggage.  They have proven that they can get the job done, because they have been getting the job done for their states.  They are good candidates, even if you do not agree with their policies.  And if we have good candidates in 2016, and a positive campaign, we will have a good turnout.  A good turnout will mean quality at the lower end of the ticket as well.  We might replace some of the screw-ups we now have in Congress with people who will do their job.  And that is what we really want, isn't it?

Now think about this for a moment.  Do you really want to rein in Washington?  Do you really want a responsive government?  If you do, it starts at the top.  Donald Trump will not go anywhere unless people step up to the mat and get involved.  You may not like these people, that's fine.  But you can press the stop button on this campaign.  You can put a stop to people buying their way into the White House if you contact the party leaders from your state and demand action, and demand it now.

In November, Once Hillary is Declared the Winner...

Now that I have your attention...Brain Dump after Trump wins Indiana and becomes the presumptive GOP nominee...Mostly speculation...

I don't think this election is over and I don't think that a Hillary election is a certainty.  However, Donald Trump has said things in the primary election that he can not un-say, and it will be very costly to him in the long run.  If he can overcome this, more power to him.

The first thing to understand is that a Hillary victory in November will not be the end of the world nor the end of the Republican Party.  In fact, it may be better for the GOP in the long run if Trump loses.  The party is more likely to learn lessons that they need to learn in order to win.  Most importantly, it will be best at this point to look forward and not backward. Therefore, let's look forward to what will happen after the 2016 election, and perhaps use it as a new way to drive the debate of this election.  After all, we need to discuss something other than Trump's wall and where women are bleeding from.

First of all, after 2016, the GOP will look forward to the mid-term elections of 2018.  There will be a chance for the GOP to take back the Senate, if they lose it in 2016, with key races in Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana and West Virginia.  Every member of the House of Representatives will be up for a vote.  They will be running against what has happened in the prior two years.  If you remove yourself from the rhetoric, it will be easy to see what is on the horizon.  I speculate that these issues will be on the voters mind at that time.

By 2018, the economy will likely be in recession again.  The signs are currently pointing downward.  Target bathrooms will no longer be a debate point as Target will be one of many retailers struggling for life.  However, some will blame the bathroom controversy as a tipping point.  By 2018, K-Mart/Sears may be closing the last of their stores.  JCPenny may also be almost gone.  Even the mighty Wal-Mart may be closing stores.  Malls across the country may be empty.  Many other retailers that we used to shop at will be gone and hardly a memory.  And there will be no one to take their place.  And because the Democrats have been in the White House for 10 years by 2018, they will no longer be able to blame George W. Bush for the state of the economy, although many pundits still will try to and certainly President Hillary will try to as well.  By 2018, popular opinion will have turned even more against both parties and incumbents, but more so against the party in power.  They always do when things go bad.

Most in the GOP will blame the recession on the minimum wage increases approved early in the Hillary administration and on Obamacare.  Some will blame Congress and Hillary for repealing the Bush tax-cuts.  Some will blame base closings (keep reading).  However, most of this has been in the works for a long time, but the other shoe has yet to drop.

Social issues will evolve in 2 years.  Same-sex marriage will not longer be a major debate.  Many conservatives will accept the reality that it is legal even if they still do not approve of the practice.  And some LGBTQ advocates, not all, but some, will allow them that privilege.  However, there will still be some debate over wills and adoption.  And certain debates will never completely go away.  The debate will evolve more toward the gender identity issue.  And it will be far beyond Target's bathrooms.  Gender identity will be a battle fought in every school board in America and this will be extremely contentious.  Many of these battles will make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The major economic debate in the next two years will be whether or not to tax Internet sales.  Wal-Mart and Target CEOs will likely seek the opportunity to testify in Congress that not taxing internet retailers is a major advantage for the online retail industry and costs jobs.  Expect that there will be many sad stories of former retail employees who are out of work to be on the evening news regularly.  Internet retailers will be blamed.  Many communities in America, of every size, in both Red and Blue states will testify that the loss of sales tax revenue is the reason most of them are dealing with budget deficits and the reason why pot holes are no longer filled or why police aren't available when you call to report a crime.  But this battle will mostly be fought in the states, and not at the federal level.  Republican will fight against taxing on-line retailers.  While Democrats will lead the fight to allow it.  However, in most states, referendums to allow sales taxes to on-lines sales will be introduced.  And in 2018, they will be voting on such taxes.  Some will pass, while others will not.  Therefore, this debate could be at the forefront of the 2018 election.

Immigration will become less of an issue, as the economy in the US keeps many immigrants at home.  However, there will be another push for comprehensive immigration reform in Congress.  This debate will never, ever go away and immigration will never be solved.

The other struggle that the US will have in the next few years will be regaining respect overseas.  There will be another round of base closings, and this will include withdrawing troops from Germany and England as the perceived threats are elsewhere in the world and there are military bases that are closer.  People will fight against this as Putin's Russia is still a perceived threat.  There will still be US troops in Europe, but far fewer.  The North Korean threat will lead to a build up of the Japanese military, and there will be much saber rattling in the far east.  I doubt any of this will come to war.  Many US troops will be moved to bases in South Korea and the Philippines.  Because the economy in the US is struggling, it will elsewhere in the world as well, and the United States and her economic policies will be blamed.

Not all industries will struggle.  The IT Security industry will boom, especially as there are more high profile hacker attacks.  However, traditional hardware-based vendors will loose ground to more affordable and salable cloud-based solutions enter the market.  Most software will be cloud- and subscription-based.  Software companies will move out of Silicon Valley and Seattle and into cheaper costs centers like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake and Denver.  While the rest of the country is suffering, these cities will thrive.

The final nail in the economic coffin will be an new BRAC, and the closure of many military bases in the US.   It could be the most massive BRAC yet, with as many as 33 domestic bases closed and many civil service jobs lost.  My hunch is that this will also include Hill AFB in Utah, with the logistics component being sent to Travis AFB in California.  Most of those closed bases will be in the interior of the country, as the military decides to be closer to where the real threats are and gravitates to the coasts.  If there is a state line between you and the coast, your base is at risk, and the more state lines you have to cross to get to the ocean, the higher the risk.  There will be exceptions, but the exceptions will need to be obvious...like Offutt AFB.  Utah, however, will survive without Hill.  There will be other communities begging Congress for a reprieve as their bases are all that support their communities.  Even though many on both sides of the isle will put up a fight, military commanders will argue that keeping bases open is wasteful, and congress will reluctantly agree.

All of this happens no matter who wins in November.  The next two years will be difficult.  This will all add up to trouble for the President in 2018 and the party of the eventual winner in this election.  Therefore, I am going to say something that I think Republicans all over the country need to hear.  Cheer up.  Things are not so bad.

The economy will not be so bad that there will calls for Trump to run again, there will be some, but not many as the loss will be so one-sided that Trump will be blamed.  There will be those who want Mitt Romney to run again.  However, Mitt understands why Trump won, even if he doesn't like him.  The GOP needs to learn lessons.  Those lessons are: come up with fresh faces and new ideas.  They are out there.  That is what Trump represents, even if those new ideas are less than savory, and really old ideas made new.

If I am a debate moderator for this election, here are the ten questions that I would ask:

1.  Do you think that there should be another round of base closing and why?  If so what criteria do you think the BRAC should consider in deciding what bases to close?

2.  Are you in favor of repealing the Bush tax cuts?

3.  Many retailers in the country are closing their doors, creating job losses throughout the country.  How do you plan to help the retail industry?

4.  What are the details of the immigration plan you will submit to Congress?

5.  Do you think the Senate should move forward with confirmation hearing on Merrick Garland?  What do you think should be the criteria for nominating new Supreme Court Justices?

6.  What are your plans to improve the overall economy of the United States?

7.  Do you plan to take any steps to support start-ups and other small businesses?

8.  Do you support a minimum wage increase?  How high should it go?

9.  How do you think schools in America should handle the sensitive issue of Gender Identity?  If you propose changes over current policy, how should those changes be funded?

10.  How can we make higher education more affordable?

Finally, my advice for Republicans and all Americans in 2016.  No matter what you think of Trump, do not stay home on election day.  There are other candidates for other offices that need your support.  They are the ones who will be turning the screws over the next two years, and certainly they are the ones that can improve things.

What Could Happen if the Electoral College is Done Away With

Every action has unintended consequences, but not all of them are bad.  And not everything about the US Electoral College is bad.  But before I spout off on that, let me explain why the college of electors was created in the first place.

When our Founding Fathers were putting together the Constitution, the found that in order to finish the task compromises had to be made.  One of those compromises was the electoral college.  Some convention delegates wanted a direct election of the President.  Some wanted the states to elect the president.  Others wanted a parliamentary system.  That is a system that many Americans are not familiar with.  In the parliamentary system, the leader of the majority party in the parliament becomes the Head of State.  It would not be the Speaker of the House of Representatives, but the House Majority Leader, currently California's Kevin McCarthy.  Also, in a parliamentary system, all of the "ministers" as they are called in England, or Cabinet Secretaries, as we know them, would come from the lower house as well.  The Secretary of State would likely be Ed Royce, who is currently the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee.  In a parliamentary system, there is no third branch of government, as the executive branch would be part of the legislative branch.

But the Founding Fathers decided to have an executive branch.  Some delegates wanted one vote per state, some wanted Congress to choose the President and some wanted the people to choose.  Therefore, the electoral college was invented as a compromise.

In our history, there have been three elections where the majority of the people disagreed with the Electoral College.  As it turns out, in order to become the President, you simply have to win the right states, and not necessarily the majority of them.  Eliminate the Electoral College and that changes.

In today's America, we can already see how that will change.  The Democratic Party controls, with almost no exception, the large cities in the United States.  While the Republican Party, with almost no exception, controls rural America.  Without the Electoral College, the battle for the White House every 4 years will almost certainly be fought in the Suburbs.  That is similar to the way campaigns are played out now, except for one difference.  Instead of concentrating on only the swing states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida and ignoring states that are predictable, like California except when they need to raise money.  The candidates will see that suburbia, even in New York and California are in play and will work harder for the votes there.

That is not to say that Republicans will completely ignore the big cities and Democrats will ignore fly-over country, as the race will need all the votes it can get, but they will spend less time in areas that are reliable.

That does, however, disprove the myth that if the electoral college were eliminated that the candidates would be more focused on the people because every vote would count differently.  But that is not true.  Take Los Angeles for example.  Why would the Democratic candidate need to focus on the city when the vote is already firmly in his corner?  Why would the Republican candidate waste time in neighborhoods where he or she would not be welcome?  Both candidate would focus on areas where they can swing the voters in one direction or another, like the San Fernando Valley and the Gabriel Valley, where there are more undecided voters and where voters tend to go into different directions depending on who the candidate is.  These are areas which mostly get ignored in presidential elections today because California has been solidly democratic since the 1990s.

The same story goes for many states all over the country.  Utah, for example, is solidly Republican, except for the communities on the north half of Salt Lake County, some of which have money to burn.  Utah, the state, is ignored in presidential elections today, but would be difficult to ignore without the electoral college.

However, there is not system that would get the candidates to focus on the problems of the country as a whole.  And that is why we have Congress.  Members of Congress, especially the House of Representatives, are tasked with solving the problems that they see in their individual districts.  If you really want to reform elections, there is a better solution that eliminating the Electoral College completely.  That would be to eliminate the winner take the entire state, but do what Nebraska and Maine already do.  The winner of each Congressional District gets the elector from that district.  That will bring the focus of each election where many problems exist, and possibly bring power from the White House to the House where it was meant to be in the first place.

The Dangers for Republicans of Delaying a Hearing and Vote for Merrick Garland

I am in favor of proceeding with a hearing and for Merrick Garland.  And here is why.

Only constitutional reason for the delay.  Constitution does not specify how many justices the Supreme Court should have.  It does not even specify that there should be an odd number.  Otherwise, there is no other constitutional reason for the Senate not to move forward.

Negatives for the GOP.

1.  With an even number of  justices, a tied court means that the decision of the lower court will stand.  Does the GOP really want to take that risk?

2.  It makes the GOP look like a party of partisan obstructionists and putting party interests ahead of the overall needs of the country.  Of course, the Republicans have, for the last eight years, looked like a party of partisan obstructionists who put party ahead of the overall needs of the country.

3.  Obama could nominate someone even more liberal to the court as a recess appointment.  Merrick Garland, on many issues, is a moderate.

4.  It could costs the party critical votes in the upcoming election.  There are 7 senate seats that are considered "toss-up" seats in the upcoming election.  Six of them are held by Republicans.  If all six are won by Democrats, they are back in the majority in the Senate.  In the House, the Democrats are likely to gain at least 8 seats.  17 others are considered toss-up elections.  3 of those 17 are currently held by Democrats.  The GOP could lose 22 seats of their 30 seat majority.  Some Tea Party people might look at this as caving, but election years are not years to play hardball.  Of course, most people are focused on the Presidential Election, but that also means that more people will be coming out to vote.

5.  The Democrats will return the favor someday.  There will be another day when there is a Republican president and Democrats are in charge of the Senate.  The Dems are sure to do the same thing at that time.  Sure, they threatened to not proceed with the nomination of Alito back in 2007, but they eventually did go forward and confirm the nomination of Samuel Alito.  The question is, do you really want this to be the precedent going forward?  I doubt you really do, as it has not been the precedent so far.

Positives for the GOP in moving forward.

1.  The GOP senators will look like they are interested in doing their jobs.

2.  They can reject Garland and force president Obama to nominate someone more moderate in his place.  (That, by the way, is how we got Anthony Kennedy on the court.)

3.  We really don't know how Merrick Garland will be as a Supreme Court justice.  Many Supreme Court justices have been a surprise once seated and confirmed.  Garland may turn out to be just like his replacement.  Unlikely, I will admit, but it is possible.

4.  The GOP Senators will get to stop explaining themselves.

Sure, the GOP can play games if they want to.  But there is probably more to lose than to gain by stonewalling Garland.  Perhaps a letter to your Senator will change is mind?

Should There Be a Minimum Required Qualifications for the Office of President

The US Constitution only gives two qualifications for the office of President of the United States.  First, a person must be 35 years of age.  And second, the president must be a natural born citizen, meaning a citizen by birth.

I think  after this election, both major parties should consider minimum qualifications before accepting just anyone to run for office.  This election, especially for the republicans, the nomination process has become a disaster.  Here is my suggestion.

A person wishing to win the nomination for the presidency from either the Republican or Democratic Party, please consider these as the minimum qualifications.  In history, you will notice that very few men who have run for the office have done well without meeting one of these qualifications.

1.  Achieved the rank of Major General in the Armed Forces, or it's equivalent.  And has commanded troops during a major war.  Examples: George Washington, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson

2.  Served at least one term as the Vice President of the United States.  Examples: John Adams, Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Martin Van Buren, Thomas Jefferson

3.  Served at least one term as the Governor of a State.  Examples: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, William McKinley, Rutherford B. Hayes, James K. Polk

4.  Served at least one term in the United States Senate.  Examples: John F. Kennedy, Warren G. Harding, Benjamin Harrison, Franklin Pierce, (Some who have served partial terms in the Senate have been elected: Barack Obama, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Jackson.  Except for Obama, the others had other experience, mainly military experience, to make up for lack of time in the Senate.)

5.  Served at least one term in the United States House of Representatives.  Examples: James A Garfield, Abraham Lincoln, William Henry Harrison

6.  Served at least one term as a cabinet-level Secretary in a Presidential Administration: Examples: Herbert Hoover, William Howard Taft, James Buchanan, John Q. Adams, James Monroe, James Madison

7.  Served at least 4 years as an associate justice, or the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.  However, no one has ever been elected with this experience.

8.  Served as the Mayor of the hub city of a Major Metropolitan Area.  However, no one has ever been elected with this experience.

All of the Democratic Candidates have one of these qualifications except for Lawrence Lessig.

Here are the Republican Candidates who have failed to meet these qualifications

Donald Trump
Carly Fiorina
Ben Carson
Mark Everson
Andy Martin

And here are those who have served partial terms in the Senate

Ted Cruz
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio

However, assuming they would have finished to taking the oath of office, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio would have completed 6 years in the senate.

Would this have cleared up matters?  On the GOP side you would have been left with

John Kasich
Mike Huckabee
Rick Santorum
Jim Gilmore
Jeb Bush
Bobby Jindal
Lindsey Graham
George Pataki
Rick Perry
Scott Walker

This is Who Supports Trump

A couple of days ago, I told you why people were mad at "The Establishment" and now you need to know who.  Let's just say that there are certain group of people who have been ignored in the political process since the days of Ronald Reagan.

According to Real Clear Politics, the Trump supporters are the forgotten demographic.  They are people who have families or are middle aged.  It is what used to be called Middle America.  Except that happy little moniker has gone the way of McGuyver.  They are likely to have a high school education, but not a college education.  They are both men and women.  And it is not necessarily white.  This demographic includes people of all races.  They listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.  It is the people who were once referred to as the silent majority, but they found their voice in Trump.  These are the people who still go to church every Sunday, even if they are not necessarily Christian by their actions the rest of the week.  They make just enough not to qualify for welfare, but not enough to be considered wealthy.  Many lost jobs and/or homes due to the housing crisis of 2008.  Many have been forced to retire early because no one will hire them.  Others feel like retirement is something that will never happen for them.  They will die with their boots on.  That is your Trump supporter.

These people feel that they have been left behind, forgotten, or taken for granted, in every single election since Reagan rode into the sunset.  They were blown over when Bush went back on his no new taxes pledge.  Many voted for H. Ross Perot in 1992.  That should have been a sign to take things more seriously.  They saw Slick Willie escape scandal after scandal, but cheered the Contract with America.  They thought things would change with Bush Jr., but were let down by new program after new program and were dismayed when the deficit grew and grew, and that the hated Clinton was the last president with a balanced budget.  TARP was the final straw.

They are angry.  They are not going to go home and study and find the best candidate.  This time, they will vote with their emotions.  And their emotions tell them that the college boys have been in power long enough.  In their mind, it's time to let Mr. Loud Mouth speak his mind.  To them, it's refreshing to hear a politician who doesn't hold any punches, who doesn't worry that what he says will rock the boat.

The problem the year is that almost no one the Republican party has is going to win this group over, not any longer.  The party has lost its trustworthiness.  In their mind, you will get the same result no matter who you vote for.  So, you may as well vote for someone who is transparent.  With this group, you can't sway them with disgusting facts about Trump, even if they are true, because they believe that everyone is covering up something just as bad.  Hence, no matter what is revealed about Trump, others are doing the same or worse when the camera's aren't running.  After all, that is what they see on TV every night.  They know it's fiction, but believe that fiction has a factual basis at one point.

The only way to stop Trump is to find some deep dark secret in his past.  Something that for him is dark and out of character.  And it would really have to be sinister and dark.  It would have to make everything that is currently public look like something a choir boy would do.  Perhaps the Democratic Party already knows the secret, and they are waiting until October to release it.  Anytime before the convention, and the GOP can simply choose someone else and they would have to run a real campaign.  But this has not been the year for the GOP.  Something will be found, but definitely after the convention and before the election.

If there is something found out before the convention, and Trump has to drop out.  I would suggest getting away from any old country-club slick, chiseled-looking chump like Mitt Romney.  Perhaps a former athlete like JC Watts.  Someone that you could have a beer with.  Someone who lives in the suburbs, not on the slopes of Park City.  Finding something on Trump may put the election into more chaos than it already is because people like that don't usually run for office.  It may also be that Trump is the Republican Slick Willie and nothing that can be found out will stick.

The danger for the Republicans is that the Democrats will want you to believe that all Republicans are like Trump.  It makes anyone that they would run look good by comparison.  That is sort of like saying that all public restrooms are like rest stop near mile 99.

It may not have come to this if Jeb Bush had listened to Mom and stayed home.  But his ego got the best of him.  To the Trump voter, seeing another Bush become the nominee was like having an extra serving of week-old buckwheet pancakes.  And the fact that Trump stole voters from just about everyone else running proves that people were looking desperately for someone whose last name was not Bush.  Jeb is indeed to blame for much of this.

It may have also helped if the Republican Party had been a little more transparent in the Bush years.  If those in Congress in the early 1990s had used a little foresight.  They knew they housing bubble would pop.  They could have at least introduced legislation to stem it.  But that never happened.

Like it or not, Trump is going to be the GOP nominee.  The real question, is what to do about it.

Why Donald Trump is succeeding

I am listening to a stump speech by Ted Cruz this morning, and there is one name I am hearing...Donald Trump.  Nothing about Ted Cruz, united the party.  Nothing about what President Ted Cruz would do for the country.  Now I am certain that as soon as I post this, I am going to get a flurry of responses about how good a Ted Cruz presidency will be.

However, Ted Cruz isn't the topic of my blog post today, it's Donald Trump and about why he is winning.  The answer is anger.  People were upset that Barrack Obama was elected, but they were even angrier about what happened earlier in 2008.  Really, the person responsible for all of this is not even Obama, and not really John McCain either.

The one thing that got everyone upset was TARP.  I am not going to argue here whether or not it was needed.  To most rank and file republicans, this was simply viewed as a huge occurrence of debt to bail-out privileged few, many of whom were not big republican supporters.  TARP ensured that Barrack Obama was going to win in that November.  Imagine being a die hard republican and seeing all of this transpire after losing both your job and your house.

This was the point in history where Republicans of all factions felt betrayed by their own party and felt that something had to be done to fix it.  But this was really the last straw.  All 8 years of the Bush Administration were filled with one excuse after another for spending more money and growing government.  Bill Clinton, who was hated by the GOP, had balanced the budget and reduced the size of government.  Sure, Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the Republican House.  But Clinton occupied the oval office.  George W. Bush, who waltzed his way into the 2000 GOP nomination had done just the opposite, and with Republicans in control of Congress for 6 of his 8 years in office.  From one large perspective, Bill Clinton was a more Republican president than W ever was.  And once republicans put this all together, the anger erupted and it has yet to subside.

If you are concerned about the quality of the four remaining GOP contenders, keep this in mind.  Donald Trump can read the anger in the party right now, and he has taken advantage of it.  You probably heard about the violence at the Donald Trump rallies this past weekend.  If The Donald becomes the GOP nominee, expect this to be the norm through November.  Without the anger, there is no Donald.  He needs it.  His campaign thrives on it.  The main reason why Trump should not be the nominee is because he fits the mold that the Democratic party likes to cast the Republicans in very well.  He is old, he is white, he is male, he uses women (and yes, he has earned that reputation), he is rich, he is angry and he doesn't care.  Besides, the Democrats just can't let the first Hispanic president be a Republican.  That will ruin everything.

Other potential republicans who could have jumped into the race, all stayed away.  Especially once Jeb Bush got in the race.  (Nothing could have stoked the Republican anger even more than the prospect of another Bush in the White House.)  No one who valued his or her political future wanted to be any part of this.  Look at what happened to Romney when he threw in his two cents worth...not like a Nixon-like comeback is in the works for Good Ole Mitt, anyway.  Mitt is expandable, he knows it.  He threw himself on his own sword.  But he still can direct where the cash flows, and he will for a few more election cycles because he knows how to make people part with it.  And that speech, the one in Salt Lake a couple of weeks ago, is the only reason Marco Rubio and John Kasich are still in the race.

If you are wondering why names like Rick Scott (Florida), Nathan Deal (Georgia), Sam Brownback (Kansas), Rick Snyder (Michigan), Brian Sandoval (Nevada), Susana Martinez (New Mexico), Jack Dalrymple (North Dakota), Nikki Haley (South Carolina) and Scott Walker (Wisconsin) stayed out of the fray this time, you now know.  If this all subsides by 2020, look for some of these men and women, all of whom are quality Republican Governors, to step up to the table in 4 years.  For now, these 9 persons are too young and have too much of a future to jump in the mud today.  They are smart to stay out of it right now, anyway.  Especially Sandoval, whose name was recently floated as a nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy.  Don't look for any of these 9 people to be Donald's running mate, either.  They are all too smart for that.

But Republicans shouldn't panic.  Whether or not Trump wins the nomination, there will be a 3rd party candidate.  If Trump loses the GOP nod, it will be Trump.  He has a big enough ego to make it happen.  If Trump wins the GOP nod, someone will step up and give conservatives someone to vote for.  And don't worry, it probably will not be Mitt Romney.  Either way, Trump steals enough angry voters away from the democratic party nominee (and there are also angry democrats) to deny the eventual winner her political mandate.  And we all learn our lessons and regroup for 2020...or at least that is what I hope will happen.

What has to happen going forward is the Republican leaders not only need to recognize the anger, but come up with a plan to overcome it.  Balancing the budget is one thing, but it is too broad and has too many other issues that it is dependent upon.  The same with immigration reform.  Besides, any immigration package that treats Hispanic immigrants differently than others would be unconstitutional, the constitution requires uniform laws.  Speaking of the constitution, the constitution itself is too broad.  And maybe, just maybe we have come across the real problem.  When it comes to politics, the Democrats fight battles, where the Republicans fight wars.

Wars are won a battle at a time.  At this time, I can't identify a battle that should be the focus of the election.  Perhaps the battle is funding to fight terrorism.  Improving police-community relations to reduce crime.  Reducing the prison population because large prisons are not fiscally conservative, anyway.  Perhaps its the college football playoffs.  I'm only grasping at straws.  But something will come up.  And those running for office in the future will decide what battles to fight.  Hopefully, it is something narrow enough and a winning one for the GOP.  Much like the cold war was at one time.  Focus on the deficit, yes, but on spending.  Perhaps one battle at a time.