If you, our fine readers, are anything like us in the Alligator office, you probably found yourselves glued to your computers and/or TV screens Monday night, eagerly anticipating/dreading the results of the Iowa caucus. As we all now know, evangelical and all-around bad human being Ted Cruz won for the Republicans with 27.6 percent of the vote and eight delegates, garbage-person and self-proclaimed “winner” Donald Trump came in second, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio had a surprise boost in support and finished third.
On the other side of the American political spectrum, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders found themselves in a historic and nail-bitingly close race to declare outright victory in Iowa; as anyone who stayed up into the wee hours Monday could tell you, as the numbers fluctuated between 2- to 3-percent margins of victory for Hillary before finally settling on an almost comically small 0.2 percent, keeping track of the count proved just as anxiety-inducing and compelling as anything on “Breaking Bad” or “The Sopranos.” This Iowa Democratic battle may very well have set a new standard for what constitutes a “close call.”
Before the Iowa caucus — the first of the 2016 presidential election — began in earnest Monday evening, blogs and social media were lit with statuses, think pieces and articles wrestling with pragmatism, idealism and feasibility regarding Sen. Sanders’ presidential bid. Hamilton Nolan of Gawker published an article titled “Idealists Won’t Vote For Idealistic Candidate Because He Can’t Win Because They Won’t Vote For Him.” In the post, which more or less lays out its whole thesis right there in the title, Nolan criticizes progressives who have pledged to vote for Hillary under the premise her ascension to the presidency is a foregone conclusion. “Here we have the world’s only scenario in which idealists are able to immediately make their beliefs a reality,” Nolan writes. “Unfortunately, the belief in this case is ‘the idealist candidate will lose.’” Nolan concludes by saying “Yes, it is true: the idealist candidate will lose if all of the idealist voters do not vote for the idealist candidate… Vote for the candidate you agree with.”
Nolan has a point. The American two-party system has managed to not only disenfranchise considerable portions of the American populace, but it has rendered most of, if not all, Americans disillusioned as well. There is a popular idiom that goes “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”; American politics has become a living embodiment of this regrettable mentality. Scores of American voters have become polarized to the point where they’ll vote along party lines and ignore whether their preferred candidate actually has their best interests at heart. Regardless of which party ends up assuming a seat, more often than not, common people end up getting screwed.
With both the Florida primary and the general election creeping up on us, expect to see many editorials on the matter. For the time being, make sure you are registered to vote by Feb. 16 for our state’s March 15 primary election. Even if you aren’t feeling the Bern and somehow believe Hillary Clinton — a former director for Wal-Mart who regularly charges $275,000 in speaking fees — has your best interests at heart, don’t let your frustration with the way things are keep you indoors. Hell, vote for Trump for all we care (but really, please don’t).
As Monday night illustrated, the 2016 election is going to be a very close race; whether you are letting idealism, frustration or a false sense of pragmatism guide your vote, just make sure it is cast.
