When I was young, I was amazed by cable TV. So many channels! Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Fox News (yep, I was that kid), and hundreds of others? To someone who grew up with only our local ABC and FOX affiliates, that kind of selection was unbelievable. However, what I didn't understand at the time was the seemingly unlimited buffet of viewing options laid out before me actually represented a heavy-handed industry practice that often left consumers high and dry. That said, recent changes in the industry landscape are making it possible for consumers to reclaim their fair share of control over TV.
Let's start with how the cable TV industry works today. Channels are owned and produced by entities called Content Owners (or simply "owners"). Owners include companies like Viacom, Disney, Turner, and Discovery Communications. The owners, in turn, offer their channels to Content Carriers (or simply "carriers") to deliver to customers. Carriers include DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, Cox, Charter, and others. The carriers are charged a fee by the owners for each channel they carry (called a subscriber fee) which varies by channel and is based on the number of customers who subscribe to each channel (Channel A may have a subscriber fee of $0.50 per subscriber and Channel B might have a fee of $0.35 per subscriber). This fee is largely what determines the prices the consumers pay when subscribing to a cable service.
Now, here's the stickling point: If you have a cable subscription, you likely weren't allowed to pick out which individual channels you wanted. Instead, your carrier asked you to pick a "package" containing a pre-determined assortment of channels. Hmm... when you think about it, that does seem a little strange. After all, why should you have to pay for hundreds of channels that you care nothing about if you just want the handful that you want regularly? This has been a major point of pain for consumers over the years; besides, what other industry makes you do that? And how is that fair? If you want to go to the grocery store and buy a Coke, does the store make you buy a Pepsi, too? The more you think about it, the more you might be upset at your carrier for not letting you select your channels al le carte.
However, the reason the carrier sells to consumers in this way is because that is precisely how channels are sold to them by the owners. For example, Disney owns ESPN, ABC Family, and the Disney Channel (among many others). DirecTV may want to carry ESPN, but not ABC Family or the Disney Channel. However, it is Disney's policy that they will only sell these channels together, so if DirecTV wants ESPN, they're going to have to pay for (and carry) ABC Family and the Disney Channel, too. In addition, as part of the agreement between Disney and DirecTV to carry these channels, Disney may dictate that DirecTV must offer all three in the same bundle; that is, DirecTV cannot offer consumers a package that includes ESPN but not ABC Family and the Disney Channel.
Simply put, if you're wondering why you're paying $70 per month for 200 channels when you only watch about 5 or so, this is it. You have no choice but to buy all of these channels from your carrier because your carrier has no choice but to buy them that way from the owner. Pretty raw deal, huh? Well, the good news is that change is on the horizon.
With the rise of high-speed internet, new content delivery services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime have started taking over consumers' viewing habits. Increasingly, Americans are spending more time watching content using these services than through cable. In fact, a small but quickly growing number of consumers (called "cord cutters") are simply cancelling their cable subscriptions and getting all of their content over the internet. This new trend has forced owners and carriers to change their business plans. Now that consumers have more choice in the market, the practice of forcing them to overpay for their content is starting to become a liability. The first evidence of this shift in business strategy is being seen in a new service called Sling TV.
Sling TV, launched in January of 2015, is an internet-based TV service that provides channels like ESPN, A&E, AMC, CNN, History, and others for a much lower price than traditional cable ($20 for the base package, as opposed to the average Cable TV subscription which costs $70). The way Sling TV accomplishes this is by focusing on offering only a small selection of popular channels, which significantly reduces subscriber fees. In addition, since Sling is entirely internet-based, consumers can watch TV over any internet-connected device including tablets, cell phones, PCs, gaming systems, and media set-top boxes.
Win-win, right? Well, almost. Sling TV is still in its infancy, and as such, there have been some growing pains. First off, content delivery over IP (the internet) isn't as smooth or reliable as delivery over cable. As a result, unstable feeds and even short-term blackouts have been regular occurrences. In addition, the bandwidth requirement to maintain a quality feed is pretty high (no official measurement, but the general rule is that about 50-75 Mbps or higher is needed), so unless you have a relatively strong connection, your best bet may be to stick with cable for now.
Still, for all of its shortcomings, Sling TV is a huge step forward for the industry. With it, the marketplace has choice and the cable TV establishment has competition. That, together with a consumer base that is largely dissatisfied with being taken advantage of and is willing to give new players in the industry a look, constitutes a strong start to the quest to take back TV.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Monday, February 15, 2016
Fight or Flight
Last week, Carrier Corporation (an air conditioner manufacturer) announced that they would be moving their plant in Indiana (where about 1,400 people are employed) to Mexico. While many see this as an example of corporate greed that should be punished, I believe that it is a symptom of the pressures of a global 21st century economy and an indictment of the outdated regulation of business in the United States. In fact, I think there's an opportunity here to dig deeper into the driving factors behind this move and to consider what steps can be taken to alleviate the pressure that corporate America finds itself under today and prevent this kind of corporate flight in the future.
Now, before I go any further, let me say that anytime anyone is laid off this way, it's a tragedy; I found myself in a similar situation just recently, and let me tell you, it's no fun (to put it lightly). That said, there are three points I'd like to make in this post: Why this happened, what can be done to prevent more moves like it, and why I believe the "progressive" approach is mistaken.
First off, the story here is probably one that you've heard many times before: The cost of labor and regulation is the United States high very high, so to remain competitive, Corporation XYZ has decided to relocate operations to country ABC where regulation is almost non-existent and people work for a buck and a quarter. While this may be a tired line, it's still pretty accurate. In Carrier's case, the cost of labor included a minimum $23/hour base wage plus a comprehensive suite of benefits for every worker. That's a pretty high cost (especially the benefits), so when you consider that, by comparison, Mexican laborers will perform the same work for a quarter of the pay and a fraction of the benefits, it's a wonder that Carrier stayed in the United States as long as it did. In addition, when you note the costly regulation that manufacturers must follow in the U.S. (Worker benefits such as ObamaCare and various EPA rules), the capital expense of day-to-day business is extraordinarily high. These factors considered, the move makes perfect business sense.
So, what can be done? For starters, understand that generally speaking, businesses actually like to stay in America as opposed to moving abroad. In fact, the vast majority of businesses will elect to remain stateside even if it means absorbing a somewhat higher cost of operation. However, manufacturers in particular (like Carrier) are under an existential threat from global competition; for them, it's no longer about how good a "Made in the USA" sticker will look on the box of the product, but whether the company is going to survive another 5 years. That said, there are a few things that can be done to lower the cost of doing business in the United States.
First, lower the corporate tax rate. Right now, the base U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, the highest in the developed world. This rate needs to be cut to 20%, which is closer to what other developed countries charge. Secondly, end double taxation. Currently, profits made by U.S. companies overseas are taxed there, and then taxed again (at 35%) when the capital is brought stateside; the net result is that companies keep profits offshore and invest over there rather than here. Instead, once revenue is taxed once, allow it to move across borders freely. Finally, curb the power of organized labor. In the past few decades, labor unions have grown very powerful and effective at forcing companies to award their members excessive benefits (usually through threat of strike or legal action). Instead, the entire country needs to be "Right-to-Work", making it illegal for unions to force company employees to join as a condition of their employment (as it is already in most states). This step alone will compel labor unions to bring their demands more in-line with real market value.
Finally, the progressive side of this discussion has their own ideas of how companies that move operations overseas should be treated. In a nutshell, they believe that companies who move operations offshore should be punished with fines, tariffs, and other sanctions. That threat, they reason, will keep companies from moving abroad and force them to stay in America. However, the fault in that logic is that no company wants to be kept prisoner by the government. If the government is willing to impose such harsh penalties on a company that relocates, what else would it be willing to do? Such targeting and corporate prosecution does not create an environment conducive to sustained economic prosperity and will instead accelerate the trend of corporate flight as more businesses will seek to escape such tyranny.
In addition, the imposition of tariffs or other protectionist penalties are likewise a folly, a relic of the 19th century. In a global, 21st century economy, protectionism may prevent short-term loss, but at the cost of long-term development. For an example of this, consider Japan: Once the leading figure in the technology sector in the post-World War 2 global economy, the Japan has suffered through consecutive decades of economic stagnation. Tentpoles of the Japanese economy like Sony, Sharp, Nintendo, and Panasonic are struggling to catch up to Korean, Chinese, and American competition and are losing cash and market share at an alarming rate. A major contributor to the economic situation these companies find themselves in are the very protectionist policies that they sought to have implemented; Japan imposes more penalties on imports than any other developed economy. As a result, Japanese corporations faced little domestic competition and in the absence of such, they failed to adapt to foreign competition. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, LG, Samsung, and Google are now selling more products in Japan than domestic companies, who are now playing a very difficult (and costly) game of catch-up. We don't want the same thing to happen in the United States.
In conclusion, the realities of competition in a global economy are putting pressure on U.S.-based companies to make tough decisions to remain viable. However, common sense steps can be taken help corporate America compete effectively in the 21st century without entertaining to the punitive approach of the progressive movement. The United States still is and can always be a great place to do business.
Now, before I go any further, let me say that anytime anyone is laid off this way, it's a tragedy; I found myself in a similar situation just recently, and let me tell you, it's no fun (to put it lightly). That said, there are three points I'd like to make in this post: Why this happened, what can be done to prevent more moves like it, and why I believe the "progressive" approach is mistaken.
First off, the story here is probably one that you've heard many times before: The cost of labor and regulation is the United States high very high, so to remain competitive, Corporation XYZ has decided to relocate operations to country ABC where regulation is almost non-existent and people work for a buck and a quarter. While this may be a tired line, it's still pretty accurate. In Carrier's case, the cost of labor included a minimum $23/hour base wage plus a comprehensive suite of benefits for every worker. That's a pretty high cost (especially the benefits), so when you consider that, by comparison, Mexican laborers will perform the same work for a quarter of the pay and a fraction of the benefits, it's a wonder that Carrier stayed in the United States as long as it did. In addition, when you note the costly regulation that manufacturers must follow in the U.S. (Worker benefits such as ObamaCare and various EPA rules), the capital expense of day-to-day business is extraordinarily high. These factors considered, the move makes perfect business sense.
So, what can be done? For starters, understand that generally speaking, businesses actually like to stay in America as opposed to moving abroad. In fact, the vast majority of businesses will elect to remain stateside even if it means absorbing a somewhat higher cost of operation. However, manufacturers in particular (like Carrier) are under an existential threat from global competition; for them, it's no longer about how good a "Made in the USA" sticker will look on the box of the product, but whether the company is going to survive another 5 years. That said, there are a few things that can be done to lower the cost of doing business in the United States.
First, lower the corporate tax rate. Right now, the base U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, the highest in the developed world. This rate needs to be cut to 20%, which is closer to what other developed countries charge. Secondly, end double taxation. Currently, profits made by U.S. companies overseas are taxed there, and then taxed again (at 35%) when the capital is brought stateside; the net result is that companies keep profits offshore and invest over there rather than here. Instead, once revenue is taxed once, allow it to move across borders freely. Finally, curb the power of organized labor. In the past few decades, labor unions have grown very powerful and effective at forcing companies to award their members excessive benefits (usually through threat of strike or legal action). Instead, the entire country needs to be "Right-to-Work", making it illegal for unions to force company employees to join as a condition of their employment (as it is already in most states). This step alone will compel labor unions to bring their demands more in-line with real market value.
Finally, the progressive side of this discussion has their own ideas of how companies that move operations overseas should be treated. In a nutshell, they believe that companies who move operations offshore should be punished with fines, tariffs, and other sanctions. That threat, they reason, will keep companies from moving abroad and force them to stay in America. However, the fault in that logic is that no company wants to be kept prisoner by the government. If the government is willing to impose such harsh penalties on a company that relocates, what else would it be willing to do? Such targeting and corporate prosecution does not create an environment conducive to sustained economic prosperity and will instead accelerate the trend of corporate flight as more businesses will seek to escape such tyranny.
In addition, the imposition of tariffs or other protectionist penalties are likewise a folly, a relic of the 19th century. In a global, 21st century economy, protectionism may prevent short-term loss, but at the cost of long-term development. For an example of this, consider Japan: Once the leading figure in the technology sector in the post-World War 2 global economy, the Japan has suffered through consecutive decades of economic stagnation. Tentpoles of the Japanese economy like Sony, Sharp, Nintendo, and Panasonic are struggling to catch up to Korean, Chinese, and American competition and are losing cash and market share at an alarming rate. A major contributor to the economic situation these companies find themselves in are the very protectionist policies that they sought to have implemented; Japan imposes more penalties on imports than any other developed economy. As a result, Japanese corporations faced little domestic competition and in the absence of such, they failed to adapt to foreign competition. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, LG, Samsung, and Google are now selling more products in Japan than domestic companies, who are now playing a very difficult (and costly) game of catch-up. We don't want the same thing to happen in the United States.
In conclusion, the realities of competition in a global economy are putting pressure on U.S.-based companies to make tough decisions to remain viable. However, common sense steps can be taken help corporate America compete effectively in the 21st century without entertaining to the punitive approach of the progressive movement. The United States still is and can always be a great place to do business.
Friday, February 12, 2016
Pullin' Gs
Recently, AT&T announced that they have begun rolling out their new 5G network on a trial basis on Austin, TX, with Verizon following suit with its own field tests later this year. The expectation across the industry is that 5G services will be widely available in the next few years.
So, what's so great about 5G? For starters, AT&T is claiming that 5G can deliver data at speeds from 10 to 100 times faster than 4G. Fast enough, in fact, for wireless cellular-based internet access to supplant the fixed cable-based system used in most American residences (much like the new startup Starry Internet). In addition, 5G is designed to be more software reliant, meaning that future upgrades should be faster and easier; rather than replacing a large amount of hardware, the network can be updated by simply deploying new firmware. Should these claims come to fruition, we could be looking at a seismic shift in the internet service landscape in America. After all, who wouldn't want to download a movie to their phone in seconds (as opposed to hours) and dump their expensive cable internet connection for a faster (and presumably cheaper) wireless solution? While all of that does sound good, I do harbor a few concerns.
First off, one problem the wireless industry has been grappling with for years is capacity. Since wireless networks are relatively new and almost everyone owns a smartphone (which, in turn, typically employ multiple processes and applications that consume a substantial amount of data on a daily basis), cellular carriers have been concerned about how much traffic their networks can effectively handle. To prevent the networks from becoming too congested, most cellular data plans include data caps to discourage consumers from using too much data. While these usage-based caps have proven effective in preventing any widespread data delivery issues (at least according to the carriers), they remain a major point of contention for consumers. After all, what's the point of having a phone that I can stream a movie on if I'm just going to hit my monthly data cap a quarter of the way through?
In this way, increasing speeds is like putting a bigger engine in a car without increasing the fuel capacity: You'll go faster, but not farther. Likewise, while network speeds have steadily improved over the years, data caps really haven't budged. Personally, I would venture to say that most users are much more satisfied with their connection speeds than their data usage limits; after all, my cellular connection speed from my desk at work is 16.5 Mbps (with a 3 GB monthly cap), which is not much slower than my 20 Mbps DSL connection (with no usage cap) at home. However, it seems as if the major carriers have spent much more time and effort attempting to improve network speed and coverage rather than capacity; I can only guess as to why this is (possibly a better return on investment?), but I can tell you that unless the rollout of 5G is met with a significant data cap increase (or outright elimination), the new technology is going to be greeted by consumers with resounding indifference.
Secondly, could coverage be extensive enough to make 5G a viable replacement for land-based internet? Certainly, building and maintaining the infrastructure would be easier; instead of laying untold miles of cables, a carrier could simply install towers that could each deliver wireless internet access across a large area. However, as with cellular connections today, natural and man-made obstructions could come into play. For instance, what about customers who live in a rural, heavily wooded areas? The obstructions caused by the trees, hills, and other geographic features would degrade the wireless signal, potentially delivering a consumer experience inferior to that of traditional terrestrial internet. That said, it's worthing pointing out that these very consumers struggle mightily to obtain access to traditional cable internet due to the expense of building out the infrastructure (a problem 5G would presumably not suffer), so this point could well be moot.
Finally, how much would all of this cost? While major investments in new technology are, by nature, very costly, let's be realistic: Consumers are very price-conscious and aren't likely to quickly adopt something that is too expensive. For example, once 5G coverage starts to be built out, we'll see a new generation of 5G-compatible phone hit the market. However, it's not outside the realm of possibility that the carriers, in an attempt to recoup some of the cost of their investment, may elect to place a 5G "tax" (or likely they'll call it something like an "access fee") on each 5G device purchased through them. In addition, in more conspicuous manner, the carrier may simply choose to increase the cost of their data plan offerings to achieve the same end. Also, in the case that a home internet access plan is offered, how would its pricing compare to traditional cable internet? Earlier I presumed that it would be cheaper since the infrastructure would be less expensive to build and maintain, but the initial rollout of any new service is going to incur significant cost; early adopters may be compelled to foot the bill for that investment.
In conclusion, while I do think that the introduction of 5G technology is exciting and a big step forward, I'm going to be careful about getting too enamored before my concerns are addressed; after all, I'd take cautious enthusiasm as an alternative to risking crushing disappointment, haha. As always, feel free to let me know what you think and what questions or concerns you may have about this plan for 5G service.
So, what's so great about 5G? For starters, AT&T is claiming that 5G can deliver data at speeds from 10 to 100 times faster than 4G. Fast enough, in fact, for wireless cellular-based internet access to supplant the fixed cable-based system used in most American residences (much like the new startup Starry Internet). In addition, 5G is designed to be more software reliant, meaning that future upgrades should be faster and easier; rather than replacing a large amount of hardware, the network can be updated by simply deploying new firmware. Should these claims come to fruition, we could be looking at a seismic shift in the internet service landscape in America. After all, who wouldn't want to download a movie to their phone in seconds (as opposed to hours) and dump their expensive cable internet connection for a faster (and presumably cheaper) wireless solution? While all of that does sound good, I do harbor a few concerns.
First off, one problem the wireless industry has been grappling with for years is capacity. Since wireless networks are relatively new and almost everyone owns a smartphone (which, in turn, typically employ multiple processes and applications that consume a substantial amount of data on a daily basis), cellular carriers have been concerned about how much traffic their networks can effectively handle. To prevent the networks from becoming too congested, most cellular data plans include data caps to discourage consumers from using too much data. While these usage-based caps have proven effective in preventing any widespread data delivery issues (at least according to the carriers), they remain a major point of contention for consumers. After all, what's the point of having a phone that I can stream a movie on if I'm just going to hit my monthly data cap a quarter of the way through?
In this way, increasing speeds is like putting a bigger engine in a car without increasing the fuel capacity: You'll go faster, but not farther. Likewise, while network speeds have steadily improved over the years, data caps really haven't budged. Personally, I would venture to say that most users are much more satisfied with their connection speeds than their data usage limits; after all, my cellular connection speed from my desk at work is 16.5 Mbps (with a 3 GB monthly cap), which is not much slower than my 20 Mbps DSL connection (with no usage cap) at home. However, it seems as if the major carriers have spent much more time and effort attempting to improve network speed and coverage rather than capacity; I can only guess as to why this is (possibly a better return on investment?), but I can tell you that unless the rollout of 5G is met with a significant data cap increase (or outright elimination), the new technology is going to be greeted by consumers with resounding indifference.
Secondly, could coverage be extensive enough to make 5G a viable replacement for land-based internet? Certainly, building and maintaining the infrastructure would be easier; instead of laying untold miles of cables, a carrier could simply install towers that could each deliver wireless internet access across a large area. However, as with cellular connections today, natural and man-made obstructions could come into play. For instance, what about customers who live in a rural, heavily wooded areas? The obstructions caused by the trees, hills, and other geographic features would degrade the wireless signal, potentially delivering a consumer experience inferior to that of traditional terrestrial internet. That said, it's worthing pointing out that these very consumers struggle mightily to obtain access to traditional cable internet due to the expense of building out the infrastructure (a problem 5G would presumably not suffer), so this point could well be moot.
Finally, how much would all of this cost? While major investments in new technology are, by nature, very costly, let's be realistic: Consumers are very price-conscious and aren't likely to quickly adopt something that is too expensive. For example, once 5G coverage starts to be built out, we'll see a new generation of 5G-compatible phone hit the market. However, it's not outside the realm of possibility that the carriers, in an attempt to recoup some of the cost of their investment, may elect to place a 5G "tax" (or likely they'll call it something like an "access fee") on each 5G device purchased through them. In addition, in more conspicuous manner, the carrier may simply choose to increase the cost of their data plan offerings to achieve the same end. Also, in the case that a home internet access plan is offered, how would its pricing compare to traditional cable internet? Earlier I presumed that it would be cheaper since the infrastructure would be less expensive to build and maintain, but the initial rollout of any new service is going to incur significant cost; early adopters may be compelled to foot the bill for that investment.
In conclusion, while I do think that the introduction of 5G technology is exciting and a big step forward, I'm going to be careful about getting too enamored before my concerns are addressed; after all, I'd take cautious enthusiasm as an alternative to risking crushing disappointment, haha. As always, feel free to let me know what you think and what questions or concerns you may have about this plan for 5G service.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Granite State of Mind
Last night, New Hampshire held its Presidential primary and unsurprisingly (at least, if you've been following the polls), Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump each scored resounding victories. And while this is only one state and the nomination process is far from over, I think that the results of last night's primary tell us a lot about the state of the election.
Let's start on the Democratic side. Well before her candidacy was even officially announced, everyone knew that Hillary Clinton was going to be in the running for the nomination. There was a lot of excitement among Democrats at this prospect; after all, they had just successfully voted the first black President into office to much fanfare, so it follows that the novelty of putting the first woman into office would be too much to resist.
However, novel as that idea may be, Hillary is tied very closely to the Democratic "establishment" (traditional party center where most of the party support and resources are focused), which has become very unpopular since the last election. This is especially true with young Democrats, who feel that they were betrayed by the broken promise of "Change We Can Believe In" when they elected Barack Obama (the Affordable Care Act, or "ObamaCare", was far from the health care revolution it was sold as, and the rest of Obama's time in office has proven unproductive).
Instead, young Democrats have embraced the "non-establishment" (standing within the party but apart from the "establishment") candidate Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist who has made initiatives like universal single-payer health care, tuition-free higher education, and the dissolution of major financial institutions the main points of his campaign. Sanders' more revolutionary goals of an expanded welfare state and higher taxation strike a chord with young, idealistic voters who are still recovering from the recession and want to see more social guarantees. From here on out, the Democratic nomination looks to become a pitched battle for the party's future.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump has finally broken through and scored the big win that many had been predicting since he rose to frontrunner status. After his upset loss in Iowa, some observers had been questioning whether the polls showing huge national support for Trump were accurate, but it seems as if the New Hampshire primary has put those doubts to rest. Like on the Democratic side, there is a divide in the Republican party between the establishment and the non-establishment, with the latter group showing some real muscle after propelling Cruz and Tump to victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively.
The real question now is if another Republican candidate (Rubio, Kasich, Bush) can round up enough establishment support to defeat Donald. Before this primary, I would have told you that Rubio had the bet shot at doing just that, but his gaffe at this past Saturday's debate (repeating himself three time while being mocked for doing so by Christie) seems to have hurt him (finishing 4th in New Hampshire where he was projected to finish 2nd beforehand). However, now that Christie and Fiorina are both dropping out, more mainstream Republican support should start freeing up to coalesce around a candidate who can serve as an alternative to the Trump firebrand.
That said, the South Carolina debate is this Saturday (8:00 p.m. CST on CBS) with the primary following a week thereafter. As we saw in New Hampshire, a debate this close to a primary can have a significant impact on the outcome and this field is tighter now than it has been in quite some time. If you have the opportunity, be sure to tune in!
Let's start on the Democratic side. Well before her candidacy was even officially announced, everyone knew that Hillary Clinton was going to be in the running for the nomination. There was a lot of excitement among Democrats at this prospect; after all, they had just successfully voted the first black President into office to much fanfare, so it follows that the novelty of putting the first woman into office would be too much to resist.
However, novel as that idea may be, Hillary is tied very closely to the Democratic "establishment" (traditional party center where most of the party support and resources are focused), which has become very unpopular since the last election. This is especially true with young Democrats, who feel that they were betrayed by the broken promise of "Change We Can Believe In" when they elected Barack Obama (the Affordable Care Act, or "ObamaCare", was far from the health care revolution it was sold as, and the rest of Obama's time in office has proven unproductive).
Instead, young Democrats have embraced the "non-establishment" (standing within the party but apart from the "establishment") candidate Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist who has made initiatives like universal single-payer health care, tuition-free higher education, and the dissolution of major financial institutions the main points of his campaign. Sanders' more revolutionary goals of an expanded welfare state and higher taxation strike a chord with young, idealistic voters who are still recovering from the recession and want to see more social guarantees. From here on out, the Democratic nomination looks to become a pitched battle for the party's future.
On the Republican side, Donald Trump has finally broken through and scored the big win that many had been predicting since he rose to frontrunner status. After his upset loss in Iowa, some observers had been questioning whether the polls showing huge national support for Trump were accurate, but it seems as if the New Hampshire primary has put those doubts to rest. Like on the Democratic side, there is a divide in the Republican party between the establishment and the non-establishment, with the latter group showing some real muscle after propelling Cruz and Tump to victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively.
The real question now is if another Republican candidate (Rubio, Kasich, Bush) can round up enough establishment support to defeat Donald. Before this primary, I would have told you that Rubio had the bet shot at doing just that, but his gaffe at this past Saturday's debate (repeating himself three time while being mocked for doing so by Christie) seems to have hurt him (finishing 4th in New Hampshire where he was projected to finish 2nd beforehand). However, now that Christie and Fiorina are both dropping out, more mainstream Republican support should start freeing up to coalesce around a candidate who can serve as an alternative to the Trump firebrand.
That said, the South Carolina debate is this Saturday (8:00 p.m. CST on CBS) with the primary following a week thereafter. As we saw in New Hampshire, a debate this close to a primary can have a significant impact on the outcome and this field is tighter now than it has been in quite some time. If you have the opportunity, be sure to tune in!
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Millennial Chess
Hey, everyone!
Welcome to my new blog, Millennial Chess! Here, you'll find my thoughts on a wide range of subjects, encompassing sports, technology, entertainment, politics and other aspects of modern life. Simply put, my goal is to provide a civil, welcoming destination for anyone interested in analyzing and/or discussing the topics of the day. As such, please feel free to comment on any of my posts you may find intriguing!
Just to give you a little background about myself, my name is Garrick Aube (pronounced 'obey') and I'm from a small town in south Mississippi called Poplarville. I started blogging on-and-off through high school, but as the normal pressures of college (and the start of my career thereafter) began to pick up, I gradually fell out of the habit. As of this post, it's been about 6 years since I last attempted to blog in earnest, but now that life seems to have calmed down a bit, I've decided the time is right to take another swing at it!
That said, as of right now I really don't have a set schedule for when or how often I'll try to post, so please bear with me while I try to get my authorial processes restarted, haha. Still, I hope that you all enjoy your time here and feel free to let me know what you think of the blog once I get up and running.
Thank you, and welcome again to Millennial Chess!
Welcome to my new blog, Millennial Chess! Here, you'll find my thoughts on a wide range of subjects, encompassing sports, technology, entertainment, politics and other aspects of modern life. Simply put, my goal is to provide a civil, welcoming destination for anyone interested in analyzing and/or discussing the topics of the day. As such, please feel free to comment on any of my posts you may find intriguing!
Just to give you a little background about myself, my name is Garrick Aube (pronounced 'obey') and I'm from a small town in south Mississippi called Poplarville. I started blogging on-and-off through high school, but as the normal pressures of college (and the start of my career thereafter) began to pick up, I gradually fell out of the habit. As of this post, it's been about 6 years since I last attempted to blog in earnest, but now that life seems to have calmed down a bit, I've decided the time is right to take another swing at it!
That said, as of right now I really don't have a set schedule for when or how often I'll try to post, so please bear with me while I try to get my authorial processes restarted, haha. Still, I hope that you all enjoy your time here and feel free to let me know what you think of the blog once I get up and running.
Thank you, and welcome again to Millennial Chess!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)