Trump Or Clinton Victory Could Depend On Non-Voters

[This article was submitted for publication to Canada Free Press on 4 November 2016 but was never published.

When I enquired as to reason why - I received the following response:

CFP-Copy
09/11/2016

Dear David,

Apologies.

I just site searched the article and found it in our spam folder. For some reason unknown to us, a few of our writers — in the last week— had their submissions arrive in spam.

Not sure why this happened, but sorry it did

Brian and Judi

Russian conspiracy theorists - here is something for you to go ballistic about.]



It would indeed be ironic if the next President of the United States was determined by the number of previous voters who this time did not exercise the most fundamental right bequeathed to them by their forefathers - the inalienable right to vote.

An increase in this class of non-voters has become more likely with the release of a Washington Post-ABC News poll - which found 46% of likely voters saying Trump is more honest and deserving of trust as against 38% for Clinton. That is seen as a wide lead for Trump since both he and Clinton were tied when the same question was asked by the Washington Post-ABC poll in September.

Clinton's decline comes amidst some extraordinary events:

1. the FBI reopening an investigation into Clinton’s private email server, having found more emails on the private computer of her senior aide Huma Abedin.

2.Interim Democratic National Committee Chairperson Donna Brazile being caught out - whilst a contributor at CNN - feeding two questions to the Clinton camp likely to be asked in a Democrat debate without the knowledge of her Presidential opponent Bernie Sanders.

3. An undercover video surfacing that tied Robert Creamer - a White House visitor on 340 occasions meeting with President Obama 45 times - to plans to incite brawls at Trump rallies and illegally bus voters to polling stations.

These latest developments could influence many previous voters - both democrats and disenchanted republicans intending to vote for Clinton - into not voting.

Bernie Sanders supporters are no doubt outraged by the treatment accorded to him by two Democratic National Committee Chairpersons.

Brazile's predecessor Senator Debbie Wasserman Schultz had been forced to resign that position after hacked emails revealed a plot to embarrass and undermine Sanders in the Democratic primaries as the Democratic Party nominee.

Brazile survives - defiant, unrepentant and unscathed.

Many other Democrats might not be prepared to vote for a candidate who could be embroiled in a lengthy FBI investigation extending well into her Presidency - that could both hamstring her administration and impact on her decision making capacity.

Republican voters - such as the Bush family - affronted and publicly distancing themselves from Trump's policies and his sometimes irrational and explosive behaviour not to mention his alleged sexual indiscretions - will now reflect on voting for Clinton in the face of these latest developments but decide they still cannot vote for Trump. They could opt to vote for neither.

The crowds flocking to Trump's rallies are far larger than Clinton's. One can reasonably conclude that the enthusiasm of Trumps's supporters far outweighs that of Clinton's - and that the likelihood of Trump voters turning out to vote will probably not diminish no matter what happens in the next few days.

Voter turnout dipped from 62.3% of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to an estimated 57.5% in 2012.

The low 2012 turnout could be explained by the fact that President Barack Obama was running for his second term whilst enjoying a high popularity rating.

It would therefore be more circumspect to accept the figure of 62.3% as setting the bar that both Trump and Clinton should be watching closely as the votes are being counted.

If the voter turnout is less than 62.3% - then Trump is more likely to win. If higher than 62.3% - then Clinton is more likely to win.

There is no doubt that this has been the most volatile Presidential election campaign ever and that the popularity of both Trump and Clinton is very low.

Hopefully dedicated past voters choosing to not vote in 2016 will never again be faced with this difficult choice of rejecting both the Republican and Democratic parties nominees.


[PS:I received the following reply from Fox News pollster Larry Sabato on 10 November 2016 after I sent him this article:

David,

It’s an excellent piece. I am going to share it with my entire team; I want every one of them to read it.

I appreciate your kind words. Most people wrote to suggest an early retirement — or a firing squad! So I salute your humanity.

Best wishes,

Larry

Dr. Larry J. Sabato
Director, Center for Politics
University Professor of Politics
University of Virginia
sabato@virginia.edu]

Obama, Clinton And Trump Must Affirm America's Crucial Commitments To Israel

[Published 19 October 2016]


President Obama is causing consternation and uncertainty in Israel because of his continuing refusal to make clear that America will veto any Security Council resolution attempting to impose a settlement of the Jewish-Arab conflict in former Palestine other than under the Roadmap of his predecessor George W. Bush.

The Roadmap - first envisioned on 24 June 2002 - was finally documented on 30 April 2003.

Bush made the following written commitment to Israel in his letter to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 — which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the American Congress by 502 votes to 12 in June 2004:

“First the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.”

Bush’s reasons for giving this American commitment were stated in his letter:

“The United States remains hopeful and determined to find a way forward toward a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I remain committed to my June 24, 2002 vision of two states living side by side in peace and security as the key to peace, and to the roadmap as the route to get there.

We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace….

... The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking represents.”

Israel honoured its disengagement plan and withdrew from Gaza and part of the West Bank in August 2005.

The risks in doing so have been translated into reality with the indiscriminate firing of tens of thousands of rockets from Gaza into civilian population centres in Israel and ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza since 2005.

That Obama would seek to resile from this Bush Congress-endorsed American commitment to Israel is unthinkable and should be disavowed by him immediately.

Amazingly two Presidential debates have been held so far between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton where the word “Israel” has not been mentioned once.

Both Trump and Clinton have remained silent up till now on stating whether they would uphold this American commitment to Israel.

Clinton was among those Senators overwhelmingly endorsing America’s commitment by 95 votes to 3.

Clinton needs to publicly state that she will honour this commitment to Israel if elected President

Trump has so far failed to say whether he will do likewise — although his rival Marco Rubio pledged at the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum:

“I will revive the common-sense understandings reached in the 2004 Bush-Sharon letter and build on them to help ensure Israel has defensible borders”

Trump needs to follow suit.

The third Presidential debate also gives Trump the perfect opportunity to state his position if he is elected President.

Hopefully the moderator Chris Wallace will ask them both this crucial question — or they volunteer an answer themselves.

America’s reputation and trustworthiness for keeping its promises are on the line.

Palestine - Turning Unreality Into Reality

[Published 19 May 2013]


A TV show - “The President” - now being aired on Maan TV - a popular independent Palestinian radio station - presents an opportunity for the election-starved Palestinian Arabs to have their say on what they would do on a variety of subjects if they were elected as the President of Palestine.

Since elections to appoint a President were last held in 2005 - this show offers the ordinary man in the street the opportunity to have his say on how to resolve the conflict between Arabs and Jews that has been ongoing and unresolved for the last 95 years.

On the Jewish side there are opinions and policies galore for ending that conflict that translate into the creation of many political parties vying for power to implement such policies at least once every four years.

There appears to be no popular political movement on the Arab side calling for fresh elections to be held to test the support enjoyed by Mahmoud Abbas - the current unelected and unconstitutional President since his term expired in 2009

Indeed there appears to be no dissenting voices criticising policies adopted since 1967 by the PLO - that Abbas also now heads - rejecting any form of territorial compromise with Israel in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem - the territories occupied by Jordan between 1948-1967 until captured by Israel in the Six Day War.

Sovereignty in these areas has remained unallocated since Great Britain handed its internationally recognised control of these territories back to the United Nations in 1948 - terminating its role as Mandatory under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine unanimously vested in it by the League in 1922.

Y Net reports that 1200 young Palestinian Arabs aged 20-35 applied to go on “The President” and the number of contestants has now been cut to 15.

The contestants have to face a panel of politicians, professionals and businessmen who together with the audience vote the contestants on and off from the show.

The winner will travel the world as a mock Palestinian ambassador and perhaps receive a car as well.

With negotiations between Israel and the PLO stalled for the last two years because of Abbas’s refusal to sit down with Israel without preconditions - some kind of circuit breaker is certainly required.

Judges on the show include Palestinian spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi, Arab member of the Israeli parliament Ahmed Tibi and Khouloud Idabis a former Palestinian Cabinet Minister.

Idabis explained the following rationale for the show:

“We are building a new generation of politicians. They are gaining skills from practice,”

The contestants are publicly identified, appear undisguised and their voices are not distorted to avoid recognition.

Hussein al-Deik, 31, - as reported by Y News - said he would oppose the type of violence espoused by Palestinians last decade when they carried out hundreds of suicide bombings and other attacks against Israeli civilians. He said he would promote peaceful demonstrations against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and even oppose stone throwing at Israeli soldiers and settlers – a common Palestinian practice.

Other candidates echoed his support for non-violence - a contrast to wider Palestinian society where support for “armed struggle” remains a common sentiment.

The show’s producer -Seema Rasool - said that if there are no elections in practice, at least there should be on TV.

“We wanted to create a new spin on reality TV – reality TV with a purpose. For decades, Palestine has only had two presidents, Abu Amar (Yasser Arafat) and Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), thus we hope this show drives the Palestinian people to truly have a democratic state. This show in itself models democracy in practice.”

The show is reportedly funded by an American organization called Search for Common Ground.

Raed Othman, Maan’s director, reportedly told Y News that the show is popular because it has tapped into the larger sense of civic involvement in politics following the upheavals taking place across the Arab world. He said entertainment shows often backfire, since viewers dealing with hardships do not want to be merely entertained.

“We found this show fits our conditions. We need elections, and there are no elections. We need an Arab Spring, and the show is our spring.”

Waad Fararieh - one of the three women remaining on the show added:

“We don’t see President Abbas in town. He spends most of his time flying when we really need his presence here. If I become a president, I will focus on the economy. Our economy is bad, and there are no real efforts to revive it.”

Three of the finalists are reportedly from Gaza, participating by video conference, since travel between Gaza and the West Bank is virtually impossible.

Sabri Saydam - an adviser to Abbas and a jury member for some of the episodes - commented

“President Abbas is aware of the show, and he was happy, because he is interested in seeing new faces, youthful faces, in the political arena."

Hopefully the eventual winner will be asked the following three questions:

1. Are you prepared to sit down and negotiate with Israel without preconditions?

2. Are you prepared to pledge that elections for President will be held at least once very four years?

3. Are you prepared to recognise Israel as the Jewish National Home?

If the winner answers “yes” to all three questions - maybe “The President” could positively contribute towards ending the current impasse in resuming negotiations.

Any TV show that turns unreality into reality is indeed money well spent.