Trumps new immigration ban: a more moderate approach

On Monday morning President Trump released the new and reformed version of his January immigration ban, a controversial executive action that received major criticism both domestically and abroad.

With much surprise, the new reform is much more subtle in its intent clearly showing the power of the people’s outcry against the original version. But, before we get into what the new order says, I would like to start by informing my audience the power of the people is still within our grasps.

The absolute backlash of the last order clearly shook A LOT of heads around the world, which included republicans skeptical of the order. On my last post about the immigration ban, I was very stern in my criticism. I stand by what I stated before: the immigration was doomed from the start by its poor execution. It was unclear, lazy in its approach, and more so, caused confusion within the Department of Homeland Security about how to execute the order.  Legal residents, green card holders and Visa holders were barred from entering the U.S., a highly illegal action made by the administration.

Let us all be clear with something. This is NOT a “travel” ban, but a ban on immigration.

There is a strict distinction between an immigrant, a traveler and a refugee and the rhetoric needs to change as a lot of these terms are thrown together interchangeably. For starters, immigrates go through a strict vetting process which can take over two years to complete. Immigrants also usually come from countries where the government is functional, but the people choose to leave by choice (most of the time). This is important, because when a country has a substantially functional government, it is easy to compile information of the people seeking immigration status as records are easier to come across. This is exactly why am I so against this “extreme vetting” that the president so eagerly wishes to adopt. The vetting process is already tedious and timely. In the post-911 era the United States government has been extremely successful in combatting foreign terrorism. We have the best security in the world, hands down. “Extreme vetting” is a paradox in itself as the current measures are already extreme in a lot of senses.

Refugees come from countries that are usually in civil war, through government reform, plagued by famine (outdated) or in a state of war. Syria is a country with a high number of refugees because the government lost control of its own land against ISIS, to keep it simplified. Since the government of Syria is barely a functional entity, what vetting process is there to execute? These people have no records, no tracking, and can pose a threat to national security. In most cases, it is hard to track and monitor refugees’ behaviors simply by the nature of the native state.

This is why I am okay with not letting in refugees into the United States. Europe is proof that these kinds of integration laws don’t work when the people are so culturally different. We don’t need that problem here in the United States. Notice how I said I was “okay” with not letting refugees in. It’s painful to see what these people have to go through, but until there is a way to apply a vetting process to these refugees, it is in the best interest of the United States to keep them out.

Immigrants, however, do go through the vetting process, and for me, if they pass the requirements, should be allowed to enter the United States. We need immigrants. This is a land of immigrant and it will forever be that way. Refugees are NOT immigrants, so people need to be a little more careful with the rhetoric.

Okay, lets get into it:

The New Order:

Interesting enough, the new executive order, which will go into effect on March 16, is more moderate in its approach. For starters, there are now six countries on the ban, all of the same from last time excluding Iraq.

Looking into the text, the Trump administration is allowing previously accepted refugees to enter the United States, but is limiting the number to 50,000. To me, that number is very high, but to a lot of people on the left, this should be calming to you. When 50,000 refugees will be allowed to enter, it’s hard to argue that the United States isn’t trying its best to meet in the middle of the issue.

The new order doesn’t give priority to religious minorities (mainly Christians), a highly controversial topic of discussion on the last order.

The new order also lifts the indefinite ban on Syrian refugees to 120 days along with the rest of the countries.

Further information will be presented as this story progresses, but until now, this is all we know.

Concluding thoughts:

The administration clearly put more thought into complying the new order together looking at a more moderate approach to the issue.

Still, it only feels the current revision is a test to what the order should have been from the start, maybe saving the administration some headache from the backlash that followed. At the end of the day, it doesn’t change what was already done, and the pain still lingers for a lot of people. But I firmly believe it goes to show that Trump cannot simply do as he pleases. This reform is proof of a more tempered approach, something I hope everyone could appreciate.

Finally, the ban is still controversial in its own right, and although I’m not fully sold on the intent considering the president has stated he wants a ban on “Muslims,” this is exponentially better than what we got in January.


Sorry about the lack of content lately…senior year is kicking my ass. I’ll do a follow up when more information is presented.


-Exsar Misael




Russia has too much influence in American politics

Russia has been in the headlines a lot recently, causing a lot of tension and confusion with the American people on what exactly is going on. Today, I hope to remedy some of those concerns or questions about Russia-American relations.

Yesterday, the New York Times reported that members of Donald Trump’s campaign during the election had repeated phone calls with members of Russian intelligence officers. The article immediately grabbed national attention. According to the Times, phone records and intercepted calls by four current and former American officials released the information to the publication.

This all coming after U.S. intelligence agencies stated that Russia leaked democratic emails to sway the election in Trump’s favor. Sergei A. Ryabov, deputy Russian foreign minister, is on record stating that there were contacts between the two parties during the election.

These actions from the Trump campaign are in direct violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which I feel will come into question if more information about Russia’s involvement in U.S. politics continues.

Republican South Carolina senator Lindsay Graham, a critic of Trump’s administration, said on Good Morning America “if it’s true, it is very, very disturbing to me. And Russia needs to pay a price when it comes to interfering in our democracy and other democracies, and any Trump person who was working with the Russians in an unacceptable way also needs to pay a price.”


So, as the American people, where should you have a problem with these interferences in our democracy (if they are true)? The answer lies in the hypocrisy of the administration in power.

On March 18, 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, a region that belonged to the Ukraine. To Trump’s backing, I do agree that President Obama was extremely weak regarding the annexation of the territory. The act was a violation of international law under the Agreement on Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent Nations in 1991, and should have been dealt with in such manner. Sanctions should have been the least form of punishment for the Russian’s actions. Vladimir Putin was a former KGB (Soviet Union committee for state security) officer for 16 years and is on the record for stating he wants to move Russia in a more Soviet-esque state.

The Russian President, quite frankly, is embarrassed. And who could you blame him? His great country was stripped of their world dominance when the Soviet Union collapsed, allowing the United States to take control of global influence. The annexation of Crimea is the first step of what may come in the future. Russia seeks power and dominance, and as an American, that makes me fearful. The ideals of the Soviet Union that are still embedded in the mind of Putin is not what the world needs in terms of political ideology.

President Trump was rightfully a critic of the Obama administrations handling of the Crimea region, but ironically, his campaign is being accused of having close administrative discussion during the election. All of which came after several intelligence agencies stated Russia was responsible for leaked democratic emails during the election.

Senator Graham is rightfully critical. It is disheartening to even try and comprehend that the current President is in talks with Russia after the annexation of Crimea. We are not friends with Russia. Our governments are different in so many ways and historically represent different ideology.

What makes the situation a little stickier is Michael Flynn’s resignation as National Security Advisor after he had discussion with the Russian ambassador on sanctions before Trump even took office.  Flynn, who resigned Monday, was misleading the Vice-President on his discussion with the ambassador. This becomes problematic as even people within the president’s inner-circle are hiding and misleading information about Russian politicians.

Regardless of your political ideology, Russia is way too involved in our political system, and they are getting away with it. I am all for improving relations with Russia, but the country should respect those boundaries set by the international community. They are making the United States look weak, and for reasons we can’t explain, Trump and his administration are at the forefront of the controversy.

Trump-Putin phone call in the Oval Office. Flynn (right) before his resignation.

Sanctions should be set in place by this administration after Russia’s actions during the election. Interfering in our politics, regardless of who was at service, needs to be punished. It makes our nation look weak at the hand of Russian influence. China in the South China Sea, and now Russia’s interference will make for great foreign policy discussions in the near future. I am eager to see what new information is released on these matters.

Let me know what you all think! Hope you enjoyed the read.


Exsar Misael

Morning briefing: Immigration Ban has been lifted

After over 48 hours of patiently waiting, the world finally has an answer to the recent controversy surrounding President Trump’s immigration ban. On Feb. 9, the 9th circuit court of the United States refused to reinstate President Trump’s Immigration ban, marking the president’s first big legal loss since taking office.

Today I want to focus on two key aspects of the discussion:

  1. What did the court decide and what was the legal question at stake? What comes next after the decision?
  2. Where did Trump go wrong? (Opinion)

The United States is split into 13 circuit courts. Each circuit has a few states that belong to its jurisdiction.  More importantly, if a state in a particular circuit rules in a specific fashion, then all the other states in the circuit must follow the precedent of that state. Confusing? Let me break it down.

For example, the 5th circuit court of the United States comprises of Texas, Alabama and Mississippi. If the circuit court of Texas decided to rule against state funded abortions, then the other two states in the circuit will follow suit.

The 9th circuit court includes the states of California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho Montana, Arizona, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Simply put, the decision from the 9th circuit court is not a surprise by any stretch of the imagination. The states represented in the 9th circuit are by in large, liberal. Interesting enough, the three judges who ruled on the immigration policy all ruled unanimously against the ban, 3-0. A 29-page concurring opinion basically stated that the immigration ban was a violation of fundamental American constitutional values. The Washington Post reported that the 9th circuit court ruled that the executive order harms international business as it prevents students, faculty, and overseas employees of American companies from traveling abroad in fear of being stranded in another country.

Screen Shot 2017-02-09 at 10.31.49 PM.png

So what is the legal question being asked? Well, we don’t necessarily know. The court has stated that it goes against American constitutional values, and that’s about it.

During the first week of the executive order, green card and Visa holders were restricted from entering the United States, which is illegal. However, the Trump administration has since reversed that rule, one again permitting these people to enter.

Since the Supreme Court usually deals with pressing issues of national security, it is highly probable that the constitutionality of this order will be taken to the highest court in the nation. But until then, we patiently wait. As of now, the immigration ban has been halted in compliance with the decision of the 9th circuit court.

Furthermore, I feel this executive order was doomed from the start not because of its intent but because of the execution.

Like I stated in my last post, I am in no way against immigration bans that are done correctly. Unfortunately for the president, this executive action was amateur at best in its execution.

First, the president is on the record for stating he wanted a ban on Muslims from entering the United States during the campaign season. This was his first mistake. Although the executive order claims it to be an “immigration ban” it is hard not to see past the lines of those words considering the rhetoric. The United States is a country founded by people seeking religious freedom. This is a nation of diversity and something I deeply take pride in. The president’s words are not only contradictory to what makes this country great, but ultimately disrespect fundamental American values—such values which are written in the doctrine of our founding, the constitution.

Photo by Alyssa Schukar, The New York Times  

The next mistake came with the actual signing of the executive order. Countless stories have surfaced the internet of constant confusion from different government agencies on how to properly execute the ban. During the first couple of days, the Department of Homeland Security was not properly informed on who exactly was allowed into the country, causing major confusion at airports around the world. People who legally had the right to enter the United States were being detained for extended periods of time without any explanation to why they couldn’t enter. For lack of a better word, the execution of the ban was messy.

So now we wait. This case is far from over and will most likely be presented to the Supreme Court very soon. As of now, the Supreme Court is split evenly 4/4. This is important because if the court cannot come to a consensus and the vote is evenly split, then the decision made by the 9th circuit court WILL STAND AS LAW marking the president’s first major defeat in office. Obviously that may be jumping the gun a little, but it is interesting to think about all outcomes of the situation.

Regardless of how you feel about the ban, this case could set precedent to how the judiciary reacts to Trump’s executive decisions. Only time will tell….

These past two weeks have been quite hectic, but I hope I can help out with any questions anyone may have.

Until next time, stay engaged!

-Exsar Misael





Back to blogging: my future as a writer

Well, the election season is officially over, and I took a break from writing. But after biting the lip these past couple of months I’ve decided this is a great time to pick back up again. Being a journalism student, this is the one of the worst and best times to be in the industry, a paradox that makes my head spin ultimately questioning the worthiness of a future as a reporter.

Donald Trump is the President of the United States, and although I can sit in this coffee shop for hours on end writing and dissecting his policy over the past few weeks, I’ll save my audience the headache for today.

Today is a day for a philosophical discussion about my life and future as a journalist. Some politics, but mostly philosophy.

For those that know me, I try to stay very objective with my line of thought. Naturally as an aspiring journalist, I try my best to not let political bias control or hinder the quality of my writing.

So without any more hesitation, let us begin.

Today, I want to discuss the first amendment, particularly the freedom of speech and the press. I want to discuss the importance of this and dig into some philosophical context to allow my audience to understand why I am hesitant about my future as a writer, predominantly in regards to our newly elected President.

As James Madison once said, if people we angels, then the function of government wouldn’t be necessary. But isn’t that what makes our world so beautiful and fascinating at the same time? Political discrepancy is only a natural part of our political system. Understanding each other’s viewpoints and decision making is how democracy flourishes and thrives. After all, in order to fix an issue, you must know what is wrong in the first place. I will always preach political moderation—equilibrium if you will. I firmly believe that Democracy fails when there is a lack of understanding from both sides of the political spectrum. Political or not, I try everyday to understand people’s needs and ideas, regardless of what I may personally believe.

The constitution is the law of the land and the foundational doctrine that governs our decision making as a united people. Regardless of your political identification, this document in particular must be the foundation of our decision making. Whether or not you believe in original intent or original understanding, the Constitution of this country is still the foundation—the starting point of our lawmaking, ethics, and social structure.

After all, good laws must satisfy three common factors: equality, eradicate pre-established notions, and form a social contract.

Equality: Law must be clear, precise and treat every citizen of equal standard no matter the authority.

Pre-established: No law that is made today can punish an action that was committed yesterday, before it existed.

Social contract: Bad laws can have a chilling effect on speech, limiting people’s access to an equilibrium of ideas and thoughts. Good law is well tailored, and applies to all individuals without hindering freedom.

The pinnacle of American ethics and law, the first amendment does exactly what law should do. It gives people the freedom of expression, an idea that was not the standard of practice around the world when it was written. At only 45 words, the first amendment is the source of our freedom.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

So how does this apply to my life as a writer? Well, under the first amendment I am granted the freedom of speech, and the press. There are 16 words that allow me to sit here and write about whatever the hell I want, guaranteeing that I will not be punished for the content I produce, regardless of what you think (as long as I don’t violate libel or slander). 16 words. 16 words gives me the freedom to express myself in the fashion I feel fits suit. Yet within those 16 words, are a billion ideas of what that freedom can mean. There are over 200 years of debate circulating on what those 16 words mean by definition, yet our morale code as a people help govern what those freedoms entail. The words are on paper, but we define by our philosophy what those words mean. Beautiful isn’t it?

The media is here to stay. It is a source for people to gather information and learn about the world around us. Historically, the media has played a huge role in the progression of our country. Providing people with information about British taxation, spreading ideas of revolution and freedom, informing individuals about government policy and war; some form of media is what keeps people in the loop at all times.

This is where I have issues. It pains me and ultimately hurts to see our President say journalist are “among the most dishonest people on Earth,” while stating he is at war with the media.

The President has also restricted certain publications from entering national briefings, an unprecedented restriction that according the historical interpretation to those 16 words, is unconstitutional. Yet the President has chosen to allow a specific handful of publications to report inside the walls of the White House, particularly those who write content supporting the rhetoric and policy of President Trump. This unfair treatment of the press has only fueled his support to follow in his rhetoric, as trust with the media has dwindled.

This is inherently dangerous to those who consume news on a daily basis. Just like our government, the media is not ran by angels. Both biases MUST be shown in the news. It allows educated individuals the opportunity to dissect and absorb all angles in politics. Democracy requires the most attentiveness of its people compared to other forms of government, relying on political attentiveness to move the country forward. Voting is just a small engagement that people must have. Consuming news is part of our democracy, and more importantly the foundation of how people base their political identification.

The President’s suppression and negative rhetoric of the press is not only inherently dangerous to our democracy, but it also moves our nation into a state where media is controlled.

I just came back from Nicaragua, and during my visit I was told I could not write about the politics of the country based on the law. The media, for the most part, is controlled and funded by the government. This allows the majority of the population to only consume news that benefits the impression of the government. Without criticism, the government can continue to influence what people think, often hindering progress and freedom of thought.

No, the United States is most likely not heading into this direction, but it does make me wonder how the suppression of the press by this administration is comparable to other nations that control the media.

It is, constitutionally speaking on behalf of those 16 words, un-American to control what media is allowed to report on the President’s behalf. It not only violates the first amendment, but the fundamental values that makes America so great to begin with.

If you are mad with the media, then as consumer, you should absorb more news from multiple sources, not engage yourself in what makes you happy.

Remember, democracy requires the most attentiveness from its people to thrive, and that includes the consumption of news. Equilibrium. Open your mind, and hear both sides of the argument in order to formulate an objective opinion. Never stop engaging and reading.

So although the words of the President do make me hesitant in my future as a writer, I will allows hold dear those 16 words that help make this country the greatest place on the planet. I will continue to write no matter the circumstance. I will always be critical, no matter who is in power. It is my job to do so. And although I do have my own political opinions, I will always try my best to stay objective. I’m sure there will be things President Trump does that I will agree with, and I’ll write when that opportunity comes. Positive or negative, I will continue to write until the day I die.


Thank you for reading everyone! I will try my best to post twice a week from here on out.

Until next time, stay engaged.

God bless,

Exsar Misael



Q and A with Paul Diaz, Sanders supporter

First and foremost, I have to thank Paul for his willingness to do this interview with me. Although we go to different universities, we still keep in touch with each other. Thanks for all the good memories in high school, and truly being a great and down to Earth friend.

Paul Diaz is a sophomore at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, fulfilling a Philosophy degree with a minor in English. Diaz is a supporter of the Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and will vote for him in the upcoming election. This blog post is intended to show the perspective of a college student voting for a democrat. I will be doing an interview with a college republican in the near future. Thank you, and enjoy!

Q: Thanks for coming out and helping me with my blog Paul. Lets get started. How important do you think it is for college students to vote, especially in this election?

A: I think it’s extremely important both in this election and in general. We can’t afford to be apathetic towards politics.

Q: For you and I, this will be the first time we’ll be able to make our mark in history. Tell me about the emotion behind voting. Are you excited? How do you feel?

A: I’m about as excited as anyone else who takes politics seriously.It’s arguably our most effective way of influencing politics.

Q: You support Bernie Sanders. What is it about his message that appeals to you?

A: I was personally sold by his idea of campaign finance reform and taking back our government from wealthy special interests.

Q: Sanders is also a big proponent of raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, and free education. How do these particular issues sit with you?

A: Well, I support the minimum wage not only because I believe it should be a living wage, but also because it would be beneficial to the economy, as a number of economists and economic articles have stated. As for healthcare, I’m not crazy about a profit-motivated system being involved when you’re dealing with someone’s health. People these days, particularly close to or at the poverty line, are likely to find themselves in a situation where they have to choose between their health or their financial stability. I think that should not be happening in a country as wealthy as ours. I support free education because I believe that the only way to make a representative electoral system like ours work the way it should be is to have an educated population. The more accessible an education is for others, the better it will be for our democracy.

Q: Bernie Sanders has recently pushed a bit of momentum. Moving into the West Coast, how pivotal are the next few weeks for the Vermont Senator? Do you think he can still win the nomination?

A: The next few weeks will almost certainly make or break his campaign. He has to overcome his deficit in delegates (pledged delegates in particular) or he simply won’t be the nominee. I firmly believe he can still pull it off at this point. Whether or not he will remains to be seen.

Q: Tomorrow night is the big debate which will include both democrat and republican candidates. What are you looking forward most about tomorrow night?
What will you be looking for Sanders to do in order to feed that momentum?

A: I’m looking forward to seeing how Hillary and Bernie will repel the criticisms that they have levied at each other in the past several days. The race for the nomination is definitely getting more heated as time goes by. As for the republican candidates, there’s honestly not much for me to look forward to at this point. You can probably understand why. I think Bernie’s best way to feed his momentum is to continue doing what he’s been doing to create it in the first place: hammer his message, defend himself effectively when he trades blows with Hillary, and land a few good ones on Hillary herself while remaining the statesman politician he’s been throughout his campaign.

Q: There has been a lot of talk in the media lately about Hilary Clinton and her relationship with “fossil fuel money,” according to Bernie Sanders.
How do feel about the battle between both campaigns, demanding apologies to one another?

A: I think everything about this “battle” is pretty trivial, with the major exception of the questions raised about Hillary’s campaign contributions and consequently her integrity. I don’t see apologies being exchanged between them anytime soon, but who knows?

Q: Clinton’s campaign contributions have been an issue in the past and one of her main criticisms. Do you think this will help define her interest? Will it help Bernie?

A: Yes, I absolutely do think her contributions affect her interest, as they do everyone. Here’s a problem with giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt over her campaign contributions: unless you’re willing to have a double standard, you have to grant that same benefit to other politicians. Do you think the large sums of money given to the Republican candidates don’t influence their votes? If you ignore this criticism with one candidate, how can you justify using this attack against the others? The simple fact is that politicians are influenced to some extent by their biggest donors. Bernie does not have a Super PAC affiliated with his campaign nor does he accept large campaign contributions from corporate interests. His campaign has been fueled with millions of mostly small donations (I believe the average donation was $27). If anyone in this election can make a strong case for not being beholden to “dark money”, it’s Bernie, and that ability can only help him in this election.

Q: Lastly, do you feel undecided republican and non-Trump supporters will vote for Bernie if the two battle it out for the election?

A: I personally believe Bernie will get the lion’s share of those voters, but I can’t speak for everyone. It all comes down to where their interests lie, how informed they are about each candidate, and whether they’re willing to put aside any biases they have for or against them.


Once again, big thanks to Paul for the help. I will be interviewing a college republican hopefully in the next seven days. But until then, don’t miss my coverage of the debate tomorrow night!


Super Tuesday 2: Thoughts

I wont go through every single state, but I do want to go over the ones that are extremely pivotal for this election. Super Tuesday was once again not a disappointment! Enjoy.


The main story in Florida tonight is Rubio vs. Trump. Florida Senator Marco Rubio suspends his presidential campaign after a hard loss in his home state to the unstoppable Donald Trump. Going into Super Tuesday, it was evident Rubio absolutely needed to take the win in his home state in order to keep his head above the water in this race. Florida being a winner-take-all state means Trump swooped all 99 delegates for the night. Rubio wasted no time with the future of his campaign as he announced his suspension less than an hour after the loss in Florida.

“And so, while it is not God’s plan that I be president in 2016, or maybe ever, and while today the campaign is suspended, the fact that I’ve ever come this far is evidence of how great America is,” Rubio said after his loss.


Realistically, Ohio Governor John Kasich doesn’t have a snowballs chance in this election, but the win in his home state of Ohio shows that Donald Trump has a weak spot. Governor Kasich stated early this month that if he didn’t run away with his home state, he would drop out of the race. The Governor takes 66 delegates from Ohio, pushing him along.

During his interview on CNN, Kasich speaks with optimism about the future of his campaign.
“I’m very happy and we’ve run a positive campaign,” Kasich said. “I’m so appreciative for the state of Ohio. We’re lining up great political support. It’s a real election for someone who knows how to fix the country and the economy. I’ve had more attention in the last 3 weeks then I’ve had in the last 3 months.”

With optimism, the governor will look to the future of the race, but realistically, Ohio showed that Trump doesn’t have immense support everywhere and will not help Kasich progress in this race. The Governor just doesn’t stand a realistic chance against Trump or Cruz.


Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio:
Hilary Clinton sweeps Senator Bernie Sanders in these three states surely putting pressure on the Vermont Senator to drop out of the race. Going into today’s election, Sanders desperately needed to win these states to ensure that he can keep up with Clinton. With a projected dominating win for Clinton, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sanders drops out soon. At this point in time, Clinton should be focusing on the fight against who the republican nominee will be.


“Our campaign has more votes than any other candidate, democrat or republican,” Clinton said at her victory speech. “You voted for our tomorrow to be better than our yesterday.

Trump’s dominating wins tonight goes to show that his support continues to grow despite the controversies that revolve around his campaign. At this rate, no other republican candidate has a real chance of taking the nomination. Trump is winning big in virtually every state and at this point in time, he should be focusing on the fight against Clinton.

Photo Credits to

Clinton has basically solidified the nomination for the democratic party, showing her absolute dominance over Senator Sanders tonight. The Vermont Senator had a fighting chance going into tonight, but with Clinton’s marginal lead in votes and delegates, I would not be surprised if Sanders drops out of the race within the next few weeks.

Photo Credits to

Super Tuesday was exciting once again. Rubio had a fighting chance, but failed to take his home state. Kasich’s win in Ohio just showed Trump is mortal in this election, however, the Ohio Governor doesn’t stand a fighting chance in the future of this election. Clinton has basically solidified her reign over both democrats and republicans, showing that she even has a marginal lead over Trump in votes and delegates. I know I said this in the last Super Tuesday post, but I am still heavily predicting a Clinton, Trump election.

These are just some of my observations on tonight. After today, the election is moving to a new direction. It’ll be exciting to see who still stands by the turn of next month. I hope you’ve all had a wonderful Super Tuesday. God Bless.

-Exsar Misael

Super Tuesday Analysis

Super Tuesday was an interesting night for politics and we certainly learned a lot about the future of this Presidential race. Today I will be highlighting some of the key aspects from last nights’ nail-biter primary, and hopefully clearing some questions anyone may have about the future of the candidates.

I must first applaud the media for covering the event every second of the way, updating us constantly on which candidate won what state, and by what percent.

Here are some of my takeaways from last night:


-Hilary Clinton did not win the nomination like she would have wanted to, but the gap is stretching farther between her and Senator Sanders. Clinton won Alabama (78 percent), Arkansas (66 percent), Georgia (71 percent), Massachusetts (50 percent), Tennessee (66 percent), Texas (65 percent), and Virginia (64 percent). From the analysis we can point out a few very important factors. Hilary won the southern states, which is a clear indication senator Sanders lost with the African American/Black vote. Massachusetts was also a very important state Clinton won that could have easily gone either way. The former Secretary of State won by only 17,000 votes, which will sure be a pain in Bernie Sanders’ side as he looks forward.

-Bernie Sanders was able to come away with a few states, but last night certainly showed the Vermont Senator has a lot of work to do if he wants to win this election. He was able to salvage Colorado (59 percent), Minnesota (62 percent), Oklahoma (52 percent), and his home state of Vermont (86 percent). If the Senator would have been able to grab Massachusetts from Clinton, the state count for Super Tuesday would have been a respectable six to five in Clinton’s favor. If that was the case, Sanders could have some peace of mind going into next few weeks, but because he is behind 191 delegates from last nights’ election, he will need to really push for the nomination.

Overall: The race is still close for the democratic party, but Hilary Clinton has a confident lead. If Bernie Sanders can clinch Michigan on March 8, he has a chance to come back. The Clinton campaign would have loved to solidify the nomination last night, but unfortunately work still needs to be done before the Vermont socialist is off of their shoulder.


I’m going to predict that sometime this week, we will see John Kasich and Ben Carson end their campaigns. Neither of the candidates where able to come off with a single state, pulling them miles behind Rubio, Cruz and Trump. Donald Trump had an impressive night as he walked away with seven states and over 300 delegates. Texas Senator Ted Cruz was able to salvage three states, including his home. The importance of Texas for the election last night was extremely pivotal. Texas provides 155 delegates, and Cruz’s win in his home state has kept the Senator alive. The delegate count for Trump and Cruz is 316 to 226 respectably. Marco Rubio had a night to forget as he only pulled the state of Minnesota with a low majority vote of 37 percent. His performance last night just wasn’t good enough and at this point in time, we are looking at a Trump/Cruz fight for the nomination.

Overall: Donald Trump is pulling away with major support from the South and I don’t see this trend dying down in the next few weeks. Cruz was able to pull away three states, but compared to Trump’s seven, the gap between the republican rivals is pulling away farther and farther. Unfortunately for the young and energetic Marco Rubio, this just isn’t his election. The only way Rubio survives, is with wins in the next few moderate republican states which include Michigan and Florida. If that doesn’t happen, Rubio will drop out of the race soon after.

Last night was extremely fun to follow, and I sure learned a lot about the direction this race is heading. Michigan will be a very important state leading into Ohio and Florida for both parties. There is still hope for Sanders, Cruz and Rubio, but the next few weeks will certainly determine how far they can go in this race.