screen-shot-2016-11-04-at-12-25-21-am

Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight Model. The trend is definitely not promising.

I know everyone’s exhausted from the constant negative political discourse. At this point, even I am; however, because I truly believe this election to be more crucial than any election I have thus far experienced, please give me four minutes of your time.

Let’s play a game. Imagine waking up November 9th: Trump has been elected as the next president of the United States. The Republicans would most definitely maintain the Senate and the House (GOP congressional candidates are 3-4 points ahead of Trump), so do not expect checks and balances to save us. If anything, the checks and balances would have been stronger against Clinton. So what are we risking with this new Trump victory?

  1. World order. This is the guy who inquired more than once why he should refrain from using nuclear weapons in Europe. Our President would be the man who publicly requested Putin to help hack email servers, conduct espionage against the US, and has repeatedly complimented his oppressive oligarchy. Our Commander in Chief would be the con-artist who is ignorant regarding foreign policy, and is way too arrogant to actually surround himself with people who aren’t. Trump has a psychological compulsion to be at the center of attention; he has to be the one who is the smartest, the one to make decisions; he will never listen. Anyone honest about him has to see this. We are risking more than another Iraq war—we are risking world order. Another world leader could really take advantage of his temperament.
  2. The driver of our economy. Most recently 370 top American economists have decided to submit a statement shunning Trump’s economic policies. I’m not a top US economist, but from what economics I have studied I do not have any doubts: with Trump, our economy would eventually dive. But ignoring all of his ludicrous economic ideas, his immigration policy would have the worst impact. Like it or not, one of the main drivers of our economy is the influx of immigrants. We thrive off of welcoming all the smart people other nations educate (at no tax expense to us), and we prosper off of the intellect with which they improve Apple, Google, or Amazon. This is not just the case with high techs, but also with the R&D for most manufacturing jobs. The US economy requires an inflow of brainpower to thrive. As for all those lower skilled “Mexicans” … many of them are our primary source of affordable labor that keep service prices affordable. Their immigration not only provides latino/a immigrants with a significantly higher quality of life than back in their previous homes, but ironically it increases wage competition back in Mexico (ultimately discouraging outsourcing). Almost any economic study I have skimmed or read has shown overwhelmingly positive impacts associated with immigration. For the average Joe, without immigration our burgers and shakes would cost a pretty penny more (so would any other service oriented product), all the while our tax revenues and economic competitiveness would plummet. In no time companies would start outsourcing what really matters for the US economy—high skilled labor, hurting us way more than an air conditioning company building a power plant in Mexico
  1. Democracy. From Trump’s claims that he refuses accept the results of the election unless he wins, to his view on interfering with the independence of courts, and meddling with the independence of the press, or his belief that often violence is necessary to solve disagreements, Trump will represent a strong will towards dismantling and discarding modern democratic values. A will that could very well prevail. Abroad, I’ve seen first hand what a failing democracy looks like (both scary, and devastatingly depressing), and the fact that one of the most important pillars of democracy, the role model country for many, might elect a President who wants to undermine our most sacred values is completely unacceptable to me. As Churchill put it “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” I think that saying hits the nail in the head: despite all our problems, we cannot risk throwing our system out. We would truly be moving backwards.

So now it’s time for Clinton. If you are convinced she is subpar candidate, corrupt, or what have you, then you should consider what the nation is risking with her…

  1. That she’ll be found guilty by the FBI? So what? If she is guilty, which I highly doubt, she will have to resign. Tim Kaine is infinitely saner and more capable of serving as President than Donald Trump. The fact that the FBI is doing this investigation should be proof that the system isn’t biased towards Clinton as some claim, and that she will be under tough scrutiny at all times.  As for this latest scandal? Her ex coworker’s ex husband’s email server is being examined in order to determine whether to reopen the case. Nothing else has happened. What are we up in arms about?
  1. That income disparities will continue to grow? Economic troubles will continue to bubble? Most of the economic policies she stands for are ones that will help decrease income disparities. As for Obamacare, she is the one who cared about healthcare from the beginning—if anyone, she is a candidate that can improve upon the imperfect system currently in place. And besides sluggish wage growth and income disparities (which have actually recently improved), what economic troubles? We are outgrowing most other countries of our standard of living (~+3% yearly most recently), we have record low unemployment, our participation rate is increasing, and we continue to be one of the most competitive countries in the world. I am not claiming our economy is in perfect condition, but we have more to lose than gain!
  1. That a dishonest, hawkish, or corrupt person will become president? If she is dishonest or corrupt, she won’t be the first. I think she might seem dishonest, because she’s a career politician. At least, unlike Trump, she and her policies are completely predictable. We know how she votes, we know what she represents—and both are acceptable, in fact often respectable. She has had a history for voting to defend those who need defending the most, and supporting economic policies that help sustainable growth. Her experience is unquestionably impressive, and thus I really have to agree with Obama: would we really be this critical of her if she were a man? I’m generally skeptical of such rhetorical questions, but  with the literally dozens and dozens of unbelievable scandals surrounding Trump, and only one major scandal surrounding Clinton, ask yourself whether there might be some truth to it… We’re punishing her for being power-hungry? Compared to Trump? Really?

I hate to focus my argument on fear, but I dread what will happen if a fascist oligarch is triumphant. I’ve experienced first hand the dangers involved with such an authoritarian man (i.e. Prime Minister Orbán in Hungary). Trump is a dangerous game to be playing, and I think believing there’s any guarantee that the checks and balances will save us, or that eventually he will just go away, or that he will lose the election, is irresponsible at best. He has a better chance than the cubs did after Game 3 according to the Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight model !

Clinton is a solid candidate who will improve upon the imperfect health care law currently in place, help lower income disparities, cultivate growth, raise the minimum wage, maintain international agreements for curbing green house emissions, know how to handle foreign conflicts, and, most importantly, maintain sanity and liberal democratic order in the world. Trump is an egotistical fascist lunatic who manipulates people like he manipulates his income tax returns, while treating anyone who opposes him similarly to how he treats women. So if you are not enthusiastic about Clinton, please consider what you are risking, and consider is it really worth “making a statement” by not voting or going third party. Please reconsider risking our future for an idealism that you can fight for again in four, or eight years from now, when the alternative is not a Trump, but rather (hopefully) another Romney.