In spite of the legitimacy to be the candidates of their respective party, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump know difficulties within their camp. Public criticisms appear and that could be translated by the development of "Third parties", usually marginalized by two big United States political parties, as well as by media.
The conventions of the Republican party and the Democratic party passed from now on. They officialized well and truly the candidacies of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as next president of the USA, planned next November. Nevertheless, it was not so much a surprise for number of observers, even if in the case of the ex-first Lady, she has of to fight up to the end of Primary, in front of senator of Vermont, Bernie Sanders, stemming from the left wing of the party and claiming "socialist" ideas during the campaign.
Differences, but which?
These last days, certain spirits consider that the duel between mister. Trump and Mrs Clinton, it is of the type "all the same". With thus, in ulterior motive, that that would change nothing in everyday life of Americans. For what reasons? One of them is bound to money. Both candidates are personally very fortunate. On the side of M. Trump, his activity in the real estate allowed him to be a billionaire; and for Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton foundation, established with her husband, the former president Bill Clinton (1993-2001), insures her an important financial stability. Following reason, it is because the financial supports of both candidates come from business people. Maybe more at the democratic candidate, cataloged as the "candidate of Wall Street" by her opponents. Besides, before being opponents, both candidates respected themselves gladly because a photo circulates on the social, showing networks Clinton guests in the third marriage of Trump. As well as during year 2009, the current republican candidate gave more than 100.000 dollars to the foundation Clinton.
Nevertheless, there are differences between both candidates. At the level of the foreign policy, the republican candidate positions for a relative isolationism, because according to several newspapers, he wishes to strengthen the relations between the United States and Israel, and he’s open towards Russia. As for her democratic opponent, she follows an interventionist line that she had already demonstrated in the past - vote for the intervention in Iraq in 2003; for incentive to lead the war in Libya -, with a constant distrust towards Moscow and a defense of the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, even if she insists on her site of campaign on the intensification of the relations between Washington and Tel Aviv. On the economy, and more exactly on the tax system, the tycoon of the real estate promises a reduction of taxes, the deregulation for companies; whereas former Secretary of State would plan to return the more progressive income tax, with an increase of the last tax rates. But it seems to be more of in the campaign of M. Sanders than a personal conviction. Finally, even if she defends itself from it now, Mrs. Clinton showed herself sensitive at the idea of an agreement of free trade between the United States and the European Union, while for mister. Trump, it is out of the question.
An emergence of the "Third parties"?
In spite of their victory in their respective Primary, mister. Trump and Mrs. Clinton have difficulty in federating totally their camp around their person. In the "Grand old party" (GOP, nickname of the Republican party), Donald Trump knows desertions. Several executives of the GOP announced that they would vote for Hillary Clinton, because of the sometimes exaggerated words of M. Trump, by whom the victory in Primary had already not bad annoyed the Establishment of the party. Rivals of Trump in the Republican primary, among which Ted Cruz, senator of Texas, asserted during the Republican convention of Cleveland (Ohio) that they would not support the one who beat them. It is not better within the Democrats because during the convention of Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), pro-Sanders activists booed the candidate during her acceptance speech, in spite of the support posted by her former rival.
As a result, seen the atmosphere in both dominant parties of the United States political class, it would be possible well that these presidential elections see the "Third parties" taking more importance than in the past. In particular two of them would be capable of cracking the two-party system across the Atlantic, i.e. the Libertarian party and the Green party. The first one, who is a party of center right, sometimes presented former(old) republicans as candidates to the presidential election. And seen the important criticisms within the GOP to Trump, this party considers good to capitalize the desertions made public. As for the second quoted party, more to the left than the Democratic party, it is tempted at the idea of convincing M. Sanders's supports for whom to vote for Mrs. Clinton would be the last thing that they would make. And in both cases, if they manage to attract voters in certain "swing States", the Major defeated party will make a big reproach. For example, several Democrats blamed the Green party and his candidate - Ralph Neder-, to have prevented Al Gore's victory against George W. Bush in 2000. What is funny because the former vice-president of Bill Clinton had more votes than Bush Jr and because in fact, that happened on the vote of the Florida and on the presidential electors of this State. The fact remains that if the United States bipartisanship lost heart in 2016, it would correspond to a trend of extension of the political spectrum - or of toughening, it is according to - observable in Europe. Either by a toughening to the left (development of Syriza in Greece; of Podemos in Spain; of the Left block in Portugal; election of Jeremy Corbyn at the head of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom), or by an extreme shift to the right (increased in importance the National Front in France; of the United Kingdom Independence party across the Channel; of the Alternative for Germany besides the Rhine; of the 5 Star Movement in Italy; etc.).
The unknown of the abstention
In this scenario which spells day after day until November, there is an unknown that is the abstention. Generally, since the post-war years, at least two voters on five are not going to vote during the presidential election. The first election of Barack Obama, in 2008, had checked a dynamics of the abstention, given that the democratic candidate seemed to embody a novelty and could enter the history books as the first Afro-American president of the United States. Eight years later, the enthusiasm seems to have cooled. Especially as stories of police violence growing to reactions of the same scale took place these last years.
It will be very interesting to see if these elections are going to mobilize the crowd or not so much. What could illustrate the idea of a "hidden taxable rating" on behalf of the vote, in our contemporary period, when the richest are more motivated to go to vote that the poorest because feeling better listened to by the elected representatives. Nevertheless, he can have a complexity by the community, "racial" aspect there. Although the policemen kill of a short majority of the whites, the part of the people killed by the police since the beginning of year 2016 and outcomes of Black and Latino communities is more than proportional to their part in the United States population. Where from one felt rather macabre who could well get noticed by the abstention next November. Yet, it is often the blacks and the Latinos, themselves more exposed to the poverty, that stay away from ballot boxes. A vicious circle which seems difficult to destroy, unless ideas such the equality, the (social) justice, are transformed into positive acts in the eyes of these minorities without the majority feel abandoned.