June 26th - Week 4

      This week, I watched This Week on ABC with George Stephanopoulos and State of the Union on CNN, hosted by Jake Tapper. Pundits and guests with George included Mitch McConnell, Tom Perez, Sir Kim Darroch, Gillian Tett, John Micklethwait, Greta Van Susteren, Stephanie Cutter, Alex Castellanos, and Michael Eric Dyson. On State of the Union, the guests were Bernie Sanders and Bob Corker. The pundits included Martin O'Malley, Jan Brewer, Ken Cuccinelli, and Nina Turner. Both shows discuss Clinton's lead in the race, discomfort in the Republican party, and Brexit.
      I first watched This Week, and George began with reviewing the polls for the presidential race. Trump is trailing 12 points behind Clinton, because his mistakes and comments are beginning to show in the demographics. George brings Senator Mitch McConnell on. They discuss voters' reactions to Trump and his troubles, and McConnell states the Republican party will not change it's stance on issues just because the split in the party. Secretary of Labor Tom Perez supports Clinton and thinks she will be the change America needs. I agree with that in the sense that Clinton has a plan and has made the plan clear to voters, while Trump only claims he will "make America great again" when he needs to be giving voters a specific plan as president. Now onto Brexit, British Ambassador Sir Kim Darroch is interviewed on the relationship of America and Great Britain, Britain's leave from the EU, and the economic affect of their leave. Now speaking to Gillian Tett and John Micklethwait, Tett discusses how many British citizens regret their vote to leave the EU, but in my opinion, they should have taken the vote more seriously because it is irrevocable. John only says how other European countries are considering having the same vote, as a result of Great Britain leaving. At the panel, Cutter stated that numbers like Trump's are extremely difficult to come back from, but she also says they have never seen numbers like his, so the two statements cancelled each other out. Dyson mentions how people will not trust a man like Trump with nuclear codes, but this is not a valid argument, because a single man cannot start a war. Using that same argument, most people do not trust Clinton to be president, as Alex Castellanos said later on. I completely agreed with Susteren when she stated that Trump needs to become a more presidential candidate, and then the voters will decide who would be better for them, despite mistakes both candidates have made. The discussion between the pundits was very beneficial because there were strong people from both parties, even though some of them were aggressive with their opinions.
     The next show, State of the Union, started with the host, Jake Tapper interviewing Bernie Sanders. Throughout the duration of the interview, Tapper was trying to get Sanders to say he would endorse Clinton. Sanders' answer was that he will not do all the work for Hillary, which I think is Sanders' way to make Clinton change her campaign tactics to defeat Trump. Bernie later says that the feeling behind Brexit is similar in comparison to the feeling behind the election in America. Tapper ends the interview and moves over to Senator Bob Corker and first asks what he thinks of the Republicans not supporting Trump. Bob says that he has respect for those people, but Trump gives a voice to "faceless bureaucracy" and bigger politicians do not like that. He later says that he is offended by foreign leaders controlling our issues, so people from Britain would not appreciate President Obama doing the same and saying comments that were "sort of sophomoric threats." The interview ends after discussion of gun control and terrorism, and Jake brings in his panel for discussion. The panel on State of the Union was unprofessional and unproductive. The guests would argue over each other, and Tapper suggested talking about immigration, to which all the guests ignored and continues their arguments. Cuccinelli accused Democrats of calling Republicans "bigots and racists" while guests from the Republican party did the exact same. The tension from both parties was highlighted through these arguments and debates. The panel never really discussed a topic fully, and soon the show ended.
     In conclusion, recently there has been tension between political parties, and the effects of that is showcasing during the discussion portions of these news shows. Some guests had productive and useful interviews, while others had a hard time staying on topic while they head-butted with members of the opposite party. I doubt the parties will ever come to an understanding or compromise, but I think it would have an amazing impact on the effectiveness and peacefulness of politics.