Trump vs. Clinton: Battle of a Man-Eating Shark and a Canary

With John Kasich’s withdrawal from the presidential race, Trump has been confirmed as the presumptive Republican Party candidate. This also means he will face the lauded Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. So, will he defeat Clinton and enter the White House?

To get your head around this, you need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates. First of all, Trump and Clinton are both disliked by portions of their own country. However, they are not alike in how they are disliked; Clinton has a bad reputation among voters, and this is something which has been established over the years. Clinton’s dishonesty during the political process, her rudeness and impetuousness as senator during the Iraq War, and the fact that she did not take responsibility as secretary of state during the Arab Spring, all combined with the voters’ vague hatred of Wall Street, has cemented her situation, and her bad reputation is the kind that is extremely difficult to shake off. However, Trump’s bad reputation — one of being a racist, fascist, a women-hater and a hater of the disabled, etc. — is unsubstantiated. This notoriety is partly due to Trump’s unbridled talk, but is also partly the result of the media seizing the opportunity to create hype, and this kind of bad impression is very easy to change. Under these kinds of circumstances, it is in fact Clinton who is in an enormously disadvantageous position, but the majority of observers are ignorant of this.

Secondly, in comparing Clinton to Trump, her greatest inadequacy is her poor ability to grasp the demands of voters and her difficulties understanding the ordinary person’s observations on societal issues. She is adept at dealing in “officialese,” but clumsy at pointing the finger at the core of the issue. In fighting for voters’ approval, she has raised topics such as “a cabinet of women” and “alien disclosure”; and while these are perhaps attractive to women such as Madeleine Albright and UFO enthusiasts, for those struggling to meet their own basic needs, it is difficult to sympathize. To make matters worse, when she faced desperate coal mine workers, Clinton repeated her previous “officialese.” While this kind of language is perhaps useful for conflict and buck-passing, this is the major reason why she is despised by the masses. (The people who accept the language used by officials are, in fact, stupid.)

But Trump is different; his policies all repeatedly emphasize American jobs and American incomes; together with his slogan of “Make America Great Again,” he is essentially pandering to the masses who are feeling the impact of immigration, a sense of loss in their living standards, and a sharp decline in support for globalized industry. Faced with the public demand for income, Trump, without the slightest hesitation, advocated setting up a trade barrier to prevent industry moving abroad, establishing a wall to put an end to illegal immigration and creating more job opportunities. Regardless of reality, this satisfies the people’s thirst for their needs to be met.

In this respect, Clinton’s voters in fact are only “female-voters,” “minority-voters” and “issue-voters,” not voters directly interested in work and income. Compared to Trump, Clinton is actually quite weak, and this is something that those who do not understand the nature of politics ignore. The longer time has gone on through two general elections, the more her achievements have lacked a purpose.

The most important thing is that Clinton’s personality is seriously flawed; throughout her career, she has lacked the ability to grasp the political pulse, has been very easily influenced by opponents and allies, and to some extent, does not possess the ability to cope with political pressure.

During the Iraq War, during the 2008 general election, while interfering in Libya, during the coup d’etat in Egypt, and with the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, Clinton was very easily influenced by her opponents and allies and easily changed her opinions. This fatal flaw was reflected during this election when, while being pressed on left-wing thinking by her campaign rival Bernie Sanders, she repeatedly echoed his position rather than assert her own viewpoint. After the ambassador in Benghazi was murdered, Clinton appeared out of her mind with panic; in the media’s eyes she was a strong woman, but in reality she had no ability to apply political pressure. This is a serious disadvantage for Clinton compared to Trump, the latter previously having been on the brink of bankruptcy and still managing to weaken the siege against him while being attacked from all sides by both the media and his own party.

Consequently, compared to Trump, Clinton is actually at a great disadvantage; despite plenty of media outlets believing Clinton will undoubtedly win, this could just be the fantasy of wishful thinking. Trump is not only a cruel and unfeeling politician, he is also a deceitfully agile politician, similar to a deep-sea man-eating shark.