Christie Turns Coat, Endorses Trump

We have reached the latest nadir in the GOP race. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has endorsed The Donald for president. I say that it's only the latest low point because it seems that there seems to be no basement of the depths into which we are continually descending. I guess that the true, lowest point of our fortunes would be Trump's inauguration, but the situation would almost certainly worsen after that.

Do you remember how we all enjoyed Christie's roasting of Senator Rubio at the debate? We laughed  heartily at the junior senator's misfortunes. The joke has now taken an unfortunate turn for the GOP establishment as Christie has added insult to injury by bombing out of the race, taking their last, best hope with him, and then endorsing their worst nightmare.

At their news conference on Friday, Trump and Christie took turns blasting Rubio for his "losing campaign." They painted him as a desperate candidate, trying his hardest to sustain the shape of his collapsing, mashed potato-volcano of a campaign. They expressed their mutual adoration and laughed at Rubio in equal measure.

This is a dramatic departure from Christie's previous rhetoric, in which he attempted to carry himself as the "tell it like it is" candidate. In January, Christie said of Trump, “Showtime is over. We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. Showmanship is fun, but it is not the kind of leadership that will truly change America.”

Today, he said that Trump “will do exactly what needs to be done to make America a leader around the world again.”  He was "proud" to endorse Trump, and thinks him "the best person to beat Hillary Clinton in November."

This sort of political flip-flopping is not, in my mind, the business of the once "no-nonsense candidate." Surely, he will profit from Trump's ascendance. Why else would he changing his stance so unabashedly? However, he says he has no plans to join the Trump administration. Christie said he plans to finish his term as governor, and then "go into private life and make money like Trump.”

Oh.

Christie's behavior begs the question: is he trying to burn the building down on his way out?

We can only wait and see.

How will Christie's endorsement affect the results of the upcoming Super Tuesday?

What is Christie's endgame?

Which are the most coveted remaining endorsements? Can they sway the popular support to anyone other than Trump?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN0VZ2I7

http://time.com/4239215/chris-christie-donald-trump-endorsement-twitter/

The Implications of the Nevada Caucus

To the dismay of many, and the joy of others, Trump led the Nevada Caucuses on Tuesday night by over twenty percent, followed by Rubio and Cruz. The Nevada Caucus doled out delegates proportionally, giving Trump 14 of the 30, Rubio 7, and Cruz 6. One serious consideration of this caucus was that it was the first state with a significant Hispanic population. Exit polls showed that Trump beat Rubio among Hispanic voters 45% to 28%. However, there is a large margin of error and many Hispanics voted Democrat. Nonetheless, the power of Trump to pull in Hispanics after his overtly racist comments, and to beat Rubio among that demographic, shows the breadth of Trump's campaign. Nevada was also important for Trump because it is generally a low turnout state. Throughout the primary season the Republican primaries have shown record breaking numbers in turnout. During the 2012 elections, only 35,000 Republicans in Nevada caucused. This year, 75,000 came to the polls. Similarly, turnout went from 603,000 in 2012 to 730,000 this year.

As good as Nevada was for Trump, it was a huge loss for Cruz. Demographically speaking, Cruz should be carrying the evangelical vote. However, in Nevada Trump won 41% of voters and Cruz won only 28%. Furthermore, this is the second state in a row that he has come in third behind Rubio, albeit it has been close in both. Cruz and Rubio both had rallying cries after the caucuses of future victories. Both candidates attacked each other, with Rubio commenting on Cruz's lies and dirty politics. Interestingly, Trump was left generally untouched by critical comments and Republican donors have yet to come out with strong opinions against his campaign.

Although Nevada was a big win for Trump, it does not guarantee him success in the future. In Utah, he polls at only 18%, but he's winning at 50% in Massachusetts. It is still early in the race, but the fast approaching Super Tuesday on March 1st, where eleven states will hold primaries, will begin to solidify who is truly the most likely Republican nominee. That being said, no candidate has won the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries for the Republicans and not gone on to be the nominee since 1980.

Does Trump have enough momentum to win him the nomination? Will negative comments from Republican donors emerge and put an end to his winning streak? What does his winning the evangelical and Hispanic vote indicate about his campaign? Is Trump unstoppable?

I personally believe that it is still early in the race and Trump is far from having enough delegates to win the nomination. Demographics change from state to state and exit polls are not necessarily reliable. Simultaneously, if Cruz were to drop out I believe that many of his evangelical voters would coalesce behind Trump. Trump is no longer a joke of a candidate, that's for sure.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nevada-caucus-results-donald-trump-2016-republican-primary/
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/big-2016-story-out-nevada-gop-caucus-turnout-n524951

Republican Debate: What to Watch out For

Tonight at 8:30 in Houston, Texas, just days before Super Tuesday the Republican candidates will face off in another debate. With three victories under his belt, Donald Trump is the frontrunner with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio trying to slow down his momentum.  John Kasich and Ben Carson will also face-off, despite both of them under pressure to drop out of the race. Here are some things to watch for tonight:

Will there be anyone or anything that can stop Donald Trump? Most likely, with the evidence from the past 6 months, Trump’s support will probably not falter. He has had rough debates, but his momentum has never been severely damaged. Over the past few weeks Trump has gone after Cruz, calling him a “liar” and also raising ethical questions about Cruz’s campaign practices. Thus Cruz is the candidate most likely to go after Trump. Rubio hasn’t been as targeted by Trump, but that could all change if he also goes after Trump tonight. A senior adviser to Rubio, Jason Roe, also said that attacking Trump would be “completely out of character” for the senator, plus a huge gamble since the last person to go directly after Trump was Jeb Bush “and he is no longer in the race.”

The only other candidate to win in a primary/caucus is Ted Cruz. However after finishing behind Trump and Rubio in both South Carolina and Nevada, he will be looking to get some of his momentum back. With Trump and other accusing him of dirty political tactics his “Trusted” campaign is slowing down.

The third candidate in question is Marco Rubio, will he finally be able to win? He narrowly beat Rubio in South Carolina and pushed Jeb Bush out of the race. He has claimed that this is now a “three-person race” and with the help of the establishment he will be the presidential candidate. In order to garner the support of the GOP Rubio needs to stand out in tonight's debate (no rehearsed speeches!).

This debate will also be crucial for John Kasich, who has been under fire from the GOP to drop out. He finished second in New Hampshire, but he is running in the establishment lane against Marco Rubio and thus is pulling votes away from him. Tonight is his chance to prove he deserves the establishment vote; his moderate and positive message is helping him and he is looking at possible victories in Southern and Midwestern states.

Lasty, Ben Carson. Carson is still running for president despite his steady decline incline in the polls; even coming last in South Carolina. If and when Carson drops out, who do you think his voters will move towards?

Do you think we will see a more aggressive Cruz tonight? What do you hope to see on tonight’s debate? Are their any issues, such as the appointment of a new judge, that you want them to speak about?

If you are watching this after the debate, how was it? Who were the winners and the losers? Did anything surprise you? How was the first debate without Jeb Bush?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/republican-debate-what-to-watch/index.html

GOP Will Refuse Any Obama SCOTUS Nominee

Almost as soon as Justice Antonin Scalia passed away, the GOP announced that they will not approve any nominee that Obama puts forward to fill the former's place. In fact, on Tuesday, they went so far as to declare that they would not even engage in the traditional courtesy meeting with an Obama nominee. Senate Republicans plan to fight so hard against any attempt by Obama to alter the high court's slant that they won't even shake a hand.

Republicans' best weapon, right now, is a 24 year old video of Joe Biden (then a senator) methodically defeating arguments made by Obama, point by point, and urging against a SCOTUS nomination in an election year. This, of course, is quite a blow for the Obama administration, but Biden has said that this video doesn't illustrate the entirety of his view on the subject. However, no matter how hard you try, it's pretty difficult to spin this one.

Republicans claim that if roles were reversed, Democrats would be making exactly the same moves that they are right now. These claims are somewhat supported by previous comments made by Democrats in previous years, but an important distinction is that they were made hypothetically, whereas the GOP's actions have real consequences on our current political climate.

Hopefully, once Obama nominates someone to fill Scalia's seat, the fight will become increasingly about the merits of the candidate, rather than a hunt for who said the most incriminating thing in the past. Soon, the argument will be about the present rather than what has come before.

Democrats still believe that they have the political high ground on this one, regardless of the Biden-shaped hit that they took early on. Seeing as the GOP won't deign to treat a nominee cordially, it will be fairly easy to argue that they're unsustainably depriving our country of a justice for political reasons, which is sure to sour public opinion of the party.

An optimal nominee for the GOP would be one that fills Scalia's shoes almost exactly. In my opinion, that would be injurious to the development of our country, as it basically stagnates the court's slant for however long it is until another justice passes away. That said, Republicans believe that whoever wins this year's election will be the one to decide who our next justice is--and they're hoping it'll be a Republican willing to follow their guidance. On the other side, if a Democrat were to win, Clinton would put forward a nominee dedicated to abortion rights, voting rights, and marriage equality; Sanders would look for a nominee who will help overturn the Citizens United decision.

I believe that Republican Senators are making a mistake by refusing to meet with Obama's nominee, whoever it may be. The fight will definitely prove to be long and arduous, but this move seems to be approaching petulance rather than political prowess.

Will Obama be successful in appointing a Supreme Court Justice? Can Democrats recover from the video of Biden? Were Republicans right to preemptively refuse to meet his nominee? What are your other predictions for this battle?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/us/politics/struggle-over-supreme-court-pick-enters-a-new-level-of-hardball-politics.html?ref=politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/supreme-court-nomination-obama.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/23/us/politics/battle-for-the-court.html

Trump Says He Will Face Hillary In the General Election

After Republican Candidate Donald Trump won the Republican Primary in South Carolina on Saturday he predicted that he will face Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton in the general election, and the two will attract a record breaking turn out.

Trump also claims that he plans to sweep states that "Republicans don't even think of" into the Republican column. Among these states, Trump claims that he will find great success in both New York and Michigan along with other states "that aren't in play".

Additionally, Trump claims that he will also build a strong relationship with African American voters. "I'm going to do great with the African-Americans. African-American youth is 58% unemployed. African-Americans in their prime are substantially worse off than the whites in their prime, and it's a very sad situation," he said.

I think Trump may be over reaching with some of his statements but Trump still seems to be running the show on the Republican side of the election. What do you guys think? Is Trump biting off more than he can chew with some of the statements he's been making?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/21/politics/south-carolina-nevada-state-of-the-union/index.html

Were the Papal comments on Trump appropriate?

Earlier today, international symbol of virtue and understanding Pope Francis was quoted as saying that Donald Trump is "not Christian" for wanting to build a wall on the Mexican-American border. The full quote: ""A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel" (CNN). 
Although I see many flaws with Trump's strategy, I truly think that the Pope has no right to publicly comment on American politics, nor does he have the right to question one's Christianity. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, and everyone has a right to voice their opinion -- but not everyone is the Pope. One of the reasons we formed this nation is so that our political system would be free of religious bias or influence, and that's why I think the Pope commenting on Trump is inappropriate. Further, in the Christian religion, it is believed that only God has the right to judge anyone's personal religious strength. Clearly, the Pope is doing exactly that, and he is using his platform to unfairly distort a candidate's perception. 
The pope is not an American, and should not allowed to make comments on what Americans should do. Obviously it's better to build bridges between cultures than walls, but there is clearly a major illegal immigration problem in this nation, and I'm not sure if the Pope is suggesting that we make illegal immigration easier for people trying to enter America unlawfully. Walls serve a practical and real purpose, not just to separate and alienate.
Obviously no disrespect to the holy Pope, since he is a great man and is catalyzing a lot of progress for this world and the Christian community, but I think he's overstepping his bounds here by making such inappropriate comments on American politics, as well as Donald Trump's religious beliefs. He is not allowed to judge based upon the laws of his religion, and he doesn't know Trump personally so he can't make that statement.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/

Do you guys think the Pope is overstepping his bounds here, with his comments on American politics and Trump's religion? Is Trump a bad guy for wanting to stymie illegal immigration? If so, what do you think needs to be done about illegal immigration?

Trump In South Carolina- What to expect ahead

As the unpredictable and volatile nature of this election continues, it becomes increasingly difficult  to imagine what will happen next. Especially in the Republican party. Will Trump remain winning or will Cruz power through? Will Kasich’s success in New Hampshire raise his chances? There is really nothing to NOT expect, that is for sure. However polls have suggested that Trump will once again, dominate in the South Carolina Primary. Trump is seen to most likely collate 35 % of Republican Primary voters, while Cruz will hold 19% and Rubio, 15%. Jeb Bush is expected to receive 10% of votes,  Ben Carson at 8% and Ohio Gov. John Kasich at 7%. There are many factors to consider with South Carolina and some of these numbers may come as a surprise like Kasich’s low percentage. Reckon his success in New Hampshire it's hard to see that such a drop down is expected. Trump’s recent action between he and the Pope has made him appear as an “unfaithful” Christian to conservative voters so this may perhaps take a toll on his percentages. For myself, and I can imagine for many, it can be difficult to understand Trump’s attraction to so many voters. However South Carolina is home to many Republicans, who certainly see eye-to-eye with Donald Trump, and because of this, his success is still predicted to be likely. This election has been a whirlwind to say the least, and predictions have been slightly mistrusted, however this has allowed the race for the presidency a significantly interesting event to follow.

Do you think these percentages are realistic?

Do you think predictions will become more accurate as the race narrows?

Will Kasich fall behind once again?

Will Trump remain ahead?

What do you predict for South Carolina?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/south-carolina-gop-polling-snapshot/index.html

Impact of Scalia's Death

Sadly, long time Supreme Court Justice Scalia passed away earlier this week at age 79. Scalia was nominated by Ronald Reagan in 1986. He has been described as the "intellectual anchor" of the Court's conservative section. He was known for his strict interpretation of the Constitution, interpreting it directly as written, rather then extending the interpretation to today's circumstances. A few days ago the Republican's had a solid majority in the Supreme Court, yet now everything could change.

Now where the Republicans used to enjoy a 5-4 majority, there sits a divided bench. With a largely Democratic Executive branch and largely Republican Legislative branch, already divided government is about to get much more confusing. And the question that remains will the Congress accept any of Obama's nominations.

This is extremely important as we are approaching election time. The decision of the new Supreme Court Justice could impact and be impacted by the likely nominee, depending on which way our country is leaning.

Also who ever gains the majority in the Supreme court will play an important role as many things have recently had their constitutionality questioned. Just some issues to come up have been: immigration, abortion, birth control, redistricting, unions, affirmative action, and environmental concerns. These all have relatively new court cases pertaining to them which may soon be impacted by the Supreme Court.

Scalia's death has created yet another aspect of divided government. Which party do you think will be in the majority? How do you think his death means for the interpretation of the constitution? How will a divided bench proceed over many of these controversial cases?

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/impact-of-scalias-death-on-pending-supreme-court-cases/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/13/3749464/the-simply-breathtaking-consequences-of-justice-scalias-death/

Clinton's NH Primary Superdelegates

In the recent New Hampshire primary, Bernie Sanders won by 22 percentage points.  However, he still received less delegates than his opponent, Hillary Clinton, did.  How is this possible???  Super delegates.
There are many special Democratic delegates, called super delegates, who are allowed to choose whichever candidate they want to support, up until the convention this coming summer.  For this reason, even though Bernie technically won New Hampshire, he still received less delegates than Clinton.  In order for Bernie to win, he would have to win by large margins in the future primaries because he needs a significant amount of delegates.  Another issue for him in this case is that delegates are given proportionally.  So, even if he wins in states -- like he did in New Hampshire-- Hillary can still receive delegates.  Because of this, he must win by large amounts in order to get more delegates and beat her.
Many Americans, especially supporters of Bernie Sanders, have become outraged by the Democratic delegate system.  Many believe that it is very undemocratic, and is rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. Groups like MoveOn.org have even started petitions in attempt to require super delegates to support the winning candidate.  I agree with this idea because the system definitely seems to be working unfairly in Clinton's favor.  Clinton has continuously claimed not to be part of the establishment, but this super delegate system is proving otherwise.

What are your thoughts?
Is the super delegate system undemocratic?
What are Bernie's chances of winning with this system in mind?

Source:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/Superdelegates-Help-Clinton-Expand-Her-Lead-Despite-New-Hampshire-loss--369319591.html

Obama Going to Cuba

No president has been to Cuba in 88 years, and Obama plans to become the president to change that. After years of isolation and in the aftermath of breaking the American embargo a little over a year ago. Obama declared his intentions on twitter: "14 months ago, I announced that we would begin normalizing relations with Cuba - and we've already made significant progress," he tweeted. "Our flag flies over our Embassy in Havana once again. More Americans are traveling to Cuba than at any time in the last 50 years." 

Obama said that he plans to work out the differences between the American and Cuban governments during his visit, including the issues of extradition that were highlighted by Marco Rubio in the last debate. Obama also acknowledged the egregious human rights violations perpetuated by the Cuban government that he hopes to fix. 

I think that this visit is certainly a good call by the POTUS. I hope that this sets a precedent as the United States as a diplomatic power rather than the world's premier military policeman. While the Republicans made a note of bashing on Obama for this decision, stating that no president should visit until there is a "free Cuba." However, it is unrealistic to think that Cuba will simply "become free." Only through the prolonged interaction between our two nations will any change be made. 

Do you think that Obama is making a good decision with his visit?

Do you think that more harm or good will come from this?

Apple Refuses to Comply with Demands of California Court

 

On Tuesday, a California federal judge order Apple to assist the FBI in the San Bernardino investigation by designing a new operating system to disable the feature that erases all contents after 10 failed passcode attempts. This would allow the FBI to unlock the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook. However, Apple CEO has refused their demand in a public letter published Tuesday. He called the directive “an overreach by the U.S. government” and building the feature would be “a backdoor to the iPhone... something we consider too dangerous to create.” Cook wrote, "the government's demands are chilling. … We are challenging the FBI's demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country." He continued, "The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers -- including tens of millions of American citizens -- from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals.”

The government justified their demands by stating that they made a commitment to the victims and their families to try every means of getting as much information and evidence about the attack. Donald Trump, Republican candidate, agrees with the Courts that Apple should comply, saying, "I think security over all -- we have to open it up, and we have to use our heads."

Cook and Apple have received lots of support from the tech community and other CEOs. Google CEO Sundar Pichai defended the decision, saying it "Could be a troubling precedent." Because of our judicial system, this would set a precedent, which would allow the government to make similar demands in the future. Jan Koum, CEO of Whatsapp and board member of Facebook, said, “I have always admired Tim Cook for his stance on privacy and Apple's efforts to protect user data. … We must not allow this dangerous precedent to be set. Today our freedom and our liberty is at stake."

This case is a matter of how much we are willing to give up our freedoms and rights in the name of national security. Cook’s letter also said, "The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that's simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices." Apple’s compliance would be like opening Pandora’s box and giving the government total access to everyone’s personal data.

In the courts, the Justice Department is citing a 1789 law called the “All Writs Act” to force Apple to comply. However, it is likely that Apple will argue that “The All Writs Act doesn’t allow government to conscript a company into service if the company doesn’t have the information … If the FBI is doing an investigation, it can’t force the local locksmith to help it break into a house.”

What do you think? Should Apple comply with the courts? Does Apple have a choice to comply or not? Where do we draw the line for national security? Do you think Apple has a shot in winning the case?

                                        

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/18/tech-ceos-in-support-of-apple-vs-fbi.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/index.html

http://fortune.com/2016/02/18/fbi-iphone/

Controversy Over Cruz's Eligibility Resurfaces

 Cruz was born in Canada and lived there for many years, which is why lots of people have been questioning his status as a "natural born citizen."  However, the definition of a "natural born citizen" simply means that he did not need to go through a process to become a citizen-- that he was a citizen from birth.  Cruz does fulfill the other two requirements to become president as he is over 35 years old and has lived here for over 14 years.  Since he fulfills all of these requirements, the issue blew over rather easily.

However recently, Donald Trump has again brought up the controversy over Cruz's eligibility to run for president.  He says that he is currently deciding whether or not to sue Cruz because of his efforts to run even though he is 'ineligible.'  Trump claims to already have a lawyer lined up, ready to go.

Do you think Cruz is really ineligible to run for president?
Do you think Trump could actually be successful in suing Cruz for this reason?
Is Trump simply trying to get Cruz out of the running because of his shock at the results of the Iowa caucus?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-lawsuit-threat/index.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/ 

Death of Justice Antonin Scalia Prompts Controversy

On Saturday, February 13, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead in a resort in Texas, apparently having died in his sleep. Scalia was one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan, and he was known for expressing vehement opposition to a number of liberal causes.

Because the nomination of Supreme Court Justices is a constitutional responsibility of the president, Scalia's death has ignited fierce partisan controversy. Senate Republicans, along with the GOP candidates, have voiced their objection to another SCOTUS Justice being appointed by President Obama, fearing that his selection will give liberals the majority on the court. Showing his disapproval towards another Justice nominated by Obama, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice... Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president" (Wall Street Journal). This standpoint has been backed by numerous members of the GOP, including Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and Senate Republicans have vowed to block any attempts by Obama to appoint another Supreme Court Justice.



On the other hand, Senate Democrats and Hillary Clinton have been very vocal in their support for another Justice appointed by Obama, proclaiming that as long as Obama holds the seat of the presidency, he has an obligation to nominate Scalia's replacement. In one of his statements, Senate Minority Harry Reid explained that "The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away. With so many important issues pending before the Supreme Court, the Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible" (CNN). Clinton has reiterated Reid, declaring that "Barack Obama is President of the United States until January 20, 2017. That is a fact, my friends, whether the Republicans like it or not. Elections have consequences. The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote" (CNN). Thus, Democrats have expressed their support for another Justice appointed by Barack Obama, invoking the constitutional responsibilities of the president and the necessity of a nominee to fill the vacant seat of Antonin Scalia. I personally agree with the Democrats on this issue, since there is simply no reason why Obama should postpone the duties of the presidency until his successor takes office.

President Obama has already appointed two left-leaning justices during his administration (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan), and the addition of another liberal to the court means that the more conservative justices would be outnumbered 5-4. Thus, there is much at stake in this whole dilemma, especially since the Supreme Court will soon be making historic decisions on issues such as gun control and affirmative action.

What do you think?

Should Obama nominate Scalia's replacement, or should he leave it to the next president?

If you think Obama should nominate Scalia's successor, why do you believe that a second-term president entering his final year in office has any right to make this selection?

If you do not think Obama should nominate Scalia's successor, why don't you think he has the right to do this? Is this not a constitutional responsibility of the president? What if the Supreme Court is split evenly on a vote and there is no one to break the tie?

How do you feel about the presence of so much partisanship in the Supreme Court, an institution that supposedly interprets the Constitution in an impartial manner?

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/battle-lines-drawn-in-congress-over-justice-antonin-scalias-successor-1455411187

Kasich Promises Strong Performance in South

On Thursday, Ohio Governor John Kasich said that he expects to perform extremely well in the Southern states, especially in the Deep South. He is confident that he can win states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. This may come as a surprise since he mostly appeals to conservatives and is expected to perform well in mostly the Midwestern states. Although he is hoping for the Midwestern states to carry him to a nomination, he knows that he must win some delegates before those states vote. Because of that, he may be making these statements about the southern states to increase their attention on him. He is often soft spoken and can be overlooked in the GOP with more flamboyant candidates, so his confident statements must attract some attention. He was quoted saying, "We're not just going to lay back. I think my message will work really well in the Deep South." While we will have to see if this is true, it will be important to see Kasich on the rise as a threat to win the nomination. After finishing second in New Hampshire, many people are becoming attracted to his independent-minded message.

Do you think Kasich will perform as well as he expects in the South? Were you impressed by his 2nd place finish in the New Hampshire primary? Could he be a legitimate contender for the nomination? 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/politics/john-kasich-deep-south-sec-states-mississippi/index.html

South Carolina: Is It Anyone's Game?

As we head into the South Carolina primary, Hillary Clinton is doing whatever it takes to win over African American voters in the state. Just yesterday, she released the campaign ad above, which condemns a flawed criminal justice system for being prejudiced against Black Americans. 

Potential criminal justice reforms and community outreach have dominated Clinton's campaign so far. However, she is very general and does not offer any examples of how exactly she plans to make the improvements she is always discussing. I worry that she may be all talk and no action, and I would not be surprised if African American voters feel the same way.

It is no secret that Bernie Sanders has been dominating the demographics Hillary once appealed to. Young voters are leaning toward Sanders now more than ever, and this is clearly worrying Hillary. As a result, she is campaigning directly to minority groups in hopes that she can count on their votes. After she lost nearly every demographic group in New Hampshire, she is feeling the repercussions of the bern now more than ever.

How do you think that things will play out in the SC Democratic primary? Do you think that Hillary Clinton will be successful in winning the majority of the Black vote? How do you think Bernie Sanders will fare in the South? Could his status as a self-proclaimed socialist hinder his success in South Carolina? How about his religion? Only time will tell...

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-criminal-justice-ad.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Felection-2016&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/bernie-sanders-intrigues-a-south-carolina-town-that-loves-hillary-clinton.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Felection-2016&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=collection

Humanitarian Crisis in Aleppo, Syria

            In Syria, Bashar Al-Assad’s troops are circling around Aleppo Syria, along with Russian Air strikers. Aleppo was once known as a safe haven for the opposition to the Syrian government but as of now, it is the “demarcation line” between Syrian government forces and the rebels. Syrian Rebels have recently attempted to flee to Turkey; however, Turkey has closed its borders in some areas. There is fear now that the Syrian government troops will surround the city and impose a siege on civilians within the city. These Syrian rebels have also been cut off from food, water and other supplies. Camps that were once considered safe for the Syrian rebels now have footage of abandoned ruins due to the attacks of the Syrian government and the Russians.

The Syrian government right now is confident that it will be victorious against the Syrian rebels that are helpless with light weapons against warplanes and missiles. They are not even being helped in the area, because parts of Turkey’s borders are closed to refugees.

John Kerry has stated that the United States is ready to provide aid to the Syrian rebels, and the United Nations has called for a cease-fire. He has also said, "What we have here are words on paper. What we need to see in the next few days are actions on the ground, in the field."

            I feel that it is necessary to provide aid to the Syrian rebels against their government that is abusing and mistreating their own citizens. As Asaad’s armies are hell-bent on winning this civil war, I just hope that a cease-fire is realistic and will truly occur. Also, it may be necessary for the United States air force to step in to make sure that Syrian refugees have safe passage out of Syria.

How do you feel about the United States’s involvement in Syria’s war?

Do you think that we need more involvement militarily?

Do you think that the Syrian government will comply with the demands of the United Nations?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/middleeast/syria-ceasefire-talks/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/middleeast/aleppo-syria-military/

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/02/06/465407798/backed-by-russia-syrian-troops-advance-in-a-major-battle-for-aleppo

The Candidates and the First Southern Primary

As the nomination game continues, the candidates next target is South Carolina. In the Republican field there still remains no clear Republican threat to Trump's dominance, which is becoming increasingly alarming to GOP leaders. On the Democrat front, Bernie Sanders major victory in New Hampshire will be tested with more moderate Democrats.

It is expected that Trump will once again win at this primary, as he has led in every South Carolina poll since July. Although he may face some greater scrutiny here than he has anywhere else so far, namely due to the fact he is the only Republican candidate who does not favor increased military spending (in a state with nearly 60,000 military retirees). As for the second Republican candidate, Ted Cruz, he will once again be relying on evangelical voters who helped him in Iowa. Although the evangelical vote here is less straightforward than it was in Iowa, with these far right Christians being divided among Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and even Carson. Then there is Jeb Bush who after beating out his Florida rival, has helped to create some momentum for his campaign as he enters a state where he has invested a lot of money and has set out to garner a lot of support. To top it all of he also has been backed by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. As for Rubio who has faltered in the past week after a less than stellar debate performance and weak showing in New Hampshire, has come out swinging against the other candidates in an attempt to bolster himself up leading into this primary  - calling out Trump for his inexperience in foreign policy and Cruz for his questionable economic voting record. Then there’s Kasich, who managed to pull of a second place finish in New Hampshire much to everyone's surprise. Due to his success he has given himself some room to breathe, with his supporters saying he doesn’t need to do as well in South Carolina as he did in New Hampshire. Kasich is mainly looking beyond this Southern primary towards contests in states such as Michigan, Illinois, and other Midwestern states in March, so don’t be expecting too much from him in this upcoming primary.

As for the Democrats, whose primary date is a week later than Republicans in South Carolina, it is expected that Hillary Clinton will be the winner. From the beginning she has felt strongly about how well she will do here given the diversity and more moderate ideology Democratic voters in the state have. Namely she is counting on support from African Americans due to her promise to that she will build off of Obama’s record. Bakari Sellers, a former state representative has said that, “black voters would embrace her as a practical fighter for issues they care about, rather than rallying to Mr. Sanders’s idealism.” Bernie Sanders on the other hand is facing an uphill battle in trying to hold onto his momentum heading into South Carolina, where his base of white, liberal voters is less dominant than it has been in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I personally think that Trump will win South Carolina as has been predicted and that Jeb Bush will have a strong showing there that will help him build more momentum as the primaries continue. Furthermore I think that Clinton will win South Carolina with Bernie Sanders starting to lose the major momentum he built up in these past two primaries, potentially giving us a taste of how he plans on combating her dominance in most other states. Although I’m not sure if the outcome of this primary will be really telling about who the nominees will be. As Rubio said, "I don't think anyone is going to wrap this up in South Carolina or Nevada. This is a unique election.”

What do you think the outcome of the South Carolina Primaries will be? How are the candidates going to be able to continue with their momentum? What obstacles do they face heading into this Southern Primary? Do you think the results of this South Carolina Primary will be indicative of the future, or will it be a turning point for some candidates? 

 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/south-carolina-primary.html?_r=0

 http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/politics/new-hampshire-primary-results/

Senators Calling for Funding to Combat Opioid Crisis

Over the past 10 years, the opioid crisis in America has deepened. Now, more than ever, an increasing amount of Americans have become increasingly dependent upon opioid-based pain medication to help them get through the day. In fact, in 2013 there were ~207 million opioid-based medications prescribed in the United States; that's over half of the population of the U.S. The campaign against opioids, led by New York Senator Charles Schumer and New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen, has started to gain traction within the Senate, especially among their Democratic partners. Earlier in the month of February, President Obama motioned for 1.1 billion dollars in 2017 budget for the fight against opioid addiction. With these funds, the President hopes to expand the network of prescription monitoring, preventative education, rehabilitation as well as the distribution of naloxone (a drug used to combat the effects of overdose).

This is not the first drug crisis we have faced here in the United States. However, it is rather unique when compared to the crack epidemic of the 1980s. Crack addiction, at that time, was a widely lower class hobby, especially among poor African-American communities where crime was rampant. In stark contrast however, today's crisis, as explained by Michael Botticelli, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, is, “of people affected are more white, more middle class, these are parents who are empowered.” Because opioids medication is a prescription type drug, it is relatively acceptable among wealthier families and has an increased potential for unknowing abuse Additionally, the way the addiction epidemic is being handled today is starkly different. In the past, addiction was thought of as a moral downfall, punishable by increasing police forces and jail times. But today, it is stressed that addiction is not a moral downfall, but a psychological disorder that can be cured through rehabilitation.

What do you think? Should Congress get the money? Is this a national concern? Is addiction a disorder or moral downfall - how should the country go about this?

http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/documents/image/ucm251737.jpg
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/2/11/democratic-senators-call-on-passage-of-emergency-funding-for-opioid-crisis.html
https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-congress/2015/americas-addiction-to-opioids-heroin-prescription-drug-abuse

The Republican Candidates Continue to Narrow

 


After the New Hampshire primary results, the once massive Republican pool of candidates is continuing to narrow as Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina have suspended their presidential bids.

Fiorina, who received 1 delegate in Iowa and 0 in New Hampshire, had once deemed herself as the candidate most suited for taking on Hilary Clinton in the general election due to her private-sector resume as a woman. After two strong performances in the debate, she rose in the polls to the top tier; however, this was short-lived. Her downfall began as she faced criticism of her attacks on Planned Parenthood and use of the inaccurate videos as evidence for her argument. While her presidential bid may have come to an end, there is talk that she may still be in the running for the vice presidency, especially due to her willingness to attack Clinton.

After Christie's disappointing finish in New Hampshire, he has also decided to suspend his campaign. This comes as a shock as he was once considered to be a potential front-runner. Even though Christie is no longer in the running for the nomination, he has most certainly left a significant impact on the race. Throughout the campaign, he has been known for his blunt statements and "inability to sugarcoat." Recently, Marco Rubio has seen the brunt of these attacks, calling him the "boy in the bubble" and accusing him of being sheltered by his staff. In the eighth debate, right before the New Hampshire primary, he attacked Rubio as shallow, inexperienced, and "flip-flopping all over the place." He went as far to say, "See Marco, the thing is this. When you're president of the United States, when you're a governor of a state, the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how great America is at the end of it doesn't solve one problem for one person." Rubio played right into Christie's trap, repeating the same line multiple times throughout the night. In the two days before the primary, Rubio appeared as "lifeless and demoralized." After Rubio's disappointing fifth place finish in New Hampshire, he blamed his lackluster performance in the debate as the source of this result. Even though Christie won't be in the race anymore, his attacks on Rubio which cause his unfortunate showing in New Hampshire may have also cost Rubio his momentum and potentially the nomination.

Despite Carson's poor showing in Iowa, he has decided to continue his campaign, in hopes of winning South Carolina. After the New Hampshire primary he said, "I'm not getting any pressure from our millions of supporters (to leave the race). I'm getting a lot of pressure to make sure I stay in the race. You know, they're reminding me that I'm here because I responded to their imploring me to get involved. And I respect that and I'm not just going to walk away from the millions of people who are supporting me." Carson downplayed his second to last performance in New Hampshire by saying that he didn't spend nearly as much money there than other candidates did.

I think that it was smart of Fiorina and Christie to drop out now, saving them lots of money while still keeping them in the race for the vice presidency. I'm most definitely surprise that Jim Gilmore has not suspended his campaign considering his last place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Do you think Fiorina and Christie made the right decision? Who will drop out next? Will Ben Carson be as successful as he thinks he will be? Who has the best shot at the vice presidency? Do you think Rubio will be further affected by Christie's attacks and his lackluster performance in New Hampshire?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/politics/ben-carson-staying-in-race/index.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/despite-poor-outcome-christie-dramatically-altered-republican-race-n516151
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/politics/chris-christie-2016-election/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/politics/carly-fiorina-drops-out-suspends-campaign/

Who's the Real Democratic Winner in Iowa: Sanders or Clinton?

The Iowa Caucuses, the first step towards the nomination process for presidential candidates, took place on February 1. In the days leading up to this event, multiple polls predicated that the race between Sanders and Clinton would be very close in this important Midwestern state, and those estimates did not disappoint.

Although Clinton was declared the winner of the Iowa Democratic Caucuses, her victory could not have been any closer. Winning the support of 49.9% of Iowa Caucus-goers, she beat Senator Bernie Sanders by a mere 0.3%. Thus, her victory seems to be more of a tie than an actual win, especially considering that Clinton was allocated 22 Democratic delegates while Sanders was given only one less. However, because of Democratic super-delegates, Clinton is currently far ahead of Sanders in terms of the number of delegates that each candidate has. These unelected delegates are establishment Democrats that provide peer review in the nomination process, and the vast majority of them have already pledged their support for Clinton. However, as more primaries and caucuses take place, these super-delegates will soon become negligible, especially since they make up only a small portion of the 4,763 total Democratic delegates.

Although the New York Times argues that Sanders' loss in Iowa is a sign of his campaign's imminent failure, I believe that Clinton's small margin of victory represents the strength of Sanders as a candidate. Only a few months ago, he was an obscure politician whose reputation as a socialist earned him much criticism, but his popularity has grown so much that millions of Americans now align themselves with his unorthodox principles. He came incredibly close to winning a significant election against the Democratic party's most prominent figure, and it seems that New Hampshire will bring similar, possibly more, success for Senator Sanders.



While the true winner of Iowa is difficult to determine, the loser could not be more obvious.

Martin O'Malley, the former Governor of Maryland, brought in a whopping 0.6% of the vote. Not only is this percentage small in and of itself, but it especially dwarfs in comparison to Clinton's and Sanders' figures. As a result, O'Malley has announced that he will suspend his campaign, leaving Sanders and Clinton (the only two legitimate Democratic candidates) to duel over the other 49 states.

What do you think?

Was Clinton's win in Iowa a true victory? Who do you think was the real winner? Who will gain more momentum from their performance in Iowa? Why do you think that Hillary Clinton has earned the support of the vast majority of Democratic super-delegates?

Source:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/01/iowa-caucus-results.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/01/us/iowa-caucus-democratic-precinct-results.html?_r=0

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=iowa%20democratic%20caucus&eob=m.03s0w/D/2/short/m.03s0w/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/upshot/how-the-virtual-tie-in-iowa-helps-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Rand Paul Bows Out of the Presidential Race

The winnowing has officially begun! What was once--and really, still is-- a huge republican field has finally started to narrow down after the Iowa caucus. The Kentucky senator officially dropped out of the race on Wednesday, January 3rd. His campaign has been struggling since the beginning, though. Rand Paul sells a libertarian slant on conservatism, but unfortunately, the public just wasn't buying it. Though he was predicted to fare better than his father, Senator Ron Paul, who ran in 2008 and 2012 with similar libertarian bids, Rand failed to accumulate enough funds and support from both big donors and individuals. In fact, polls show that his support hasn't been past the single digits since last May. Of course, it's hard to gather support in such an overcrowded field, but Paul really struggled with shouting over the insidious voice of Trump. Though his father was second in the 2012 New Hampshire primary with 23% of the vote, the younger Paul has been predicted to only inspire 3%. Along with serious funding issues, he had no choice but to withdraw. His particular branch of conservatism was, unfortunately, not enough to build on the grassroots base that his father established. Instead, Republicans are favoring more traditionally conservative candidates like Cruz and Rubio (and, of course, wild cards like Trump). In debates, Paul had been floundering, once being snubbed and boycotting the event, and then failing to make much of an impact when he was finally restored on stage. The Twitter Q&A that he hosted instead of the debate actually did generate some interest in him, but apparently it was far from enough. In the end, Rand Paul won only 4.5% of the vote in the Iowa caucus, far too small to realistically stay in the campaign. Paul is the third candidate to pull out of the race, with Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Martin O'Malley retiring their campaigns as well. Luckily for Paul and his supporters, his "fight is not over". Now, he will focus on reelection in the Senate to ensure that his libertarian voice is heard. 

So, who do you think will be the next to go? If Trump loses the primaries, will he drop out? How narrow do you think the field will become? Will it be the traditional one-on-one, or will the massive Republican field shake things up?

http://www.wired.com/2016/02/the-great-winnowing-begins-as-rand-paul-drops-out-of-race/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

What to Watch Out For in Tonight’s Debate

Tonight’s Democratic debate on NBC is the last chance for Clinton and Sanders to prove themselves before the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday. For the first time, the debate will take place without former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, allowing the two remaining candidates more stage time and a chance to make their final case to voters.

This debate will give Clinton and Sanders a chance to make up in the areas they’ve been lacking before the big day. Clinton, especially, has a lot to do if she wants to have a good standing on Tuesday. Though she remains the national front-runner, polls show that New Hampshire favors Sander over her—a new poll from yesterday displays Sanders’ 33-point lead over Clinton. The University of Massachusetts-Lowell/7 News survey showed that 63% of registered Democrats favored Mr. Sanders, compared to just 30% who support Mrs. Clinton.

Most importantly, to improve her standing, Mrs. Clinton must win the favor of young voters—many of which support Sanders. Exit poll data showed that Mr. Sanders was the favorite of 84% of Iowa caucus goers between the ages of 17 and 29. Mrs. Clinton won just 14% of that group. This may be because so far, Clinton has simply been relying on her experience as a former secretary of state, senator and first lady. But young voters want to see how Clinton can bring concrete change to people’s lives. She must focus more on what she sees as the larger vision and purpose of her presidency, rather than a bunch of incomplete policy proposals.

As for Mr. Sanders, the debate is a chance for him to improve his standing with minority groups. Up until now, the race has played out in two primarily white states: Iowa and New Hampshire. However, as the race continues, Sanders will have to face Nevada and South Carolina which have a substantial amount of Hispanic and African-American constituencies. It would definitely benefit Sanders if he could win over some of Mrs. Clinton’s minority supporters. Sanders may refer to his work on behalf of the civil rights movement and share some of his proposals to assist poverty in minority neighborhoods including a $15 minimum wage and a government-run “Medicare-for-all” health system.In addition, Sanders must find ways to win the loyalty of the older voters, most of which have moved towards Mrs. Clinton. His desire to expand Social Security benefits and to lift the cap on income subject to the taxes that fund Social Security may help him gain support.

I believe that though it looks like Sanders will be winning the New Hampshire primary, it will be harder for him to replace Clinton as the national front-runner. As for the debate, they will have ample time to address the issues above. Iowa definitely boosted Sanders confidence and scared Clinton—I expect them to bring their A game today especially with the buildup of aggressive attacks back and forth on Twitter.

What do you expect from the debate tonight after such close results in Iowa? Do you think it could change the predictions for New Hampshire?

If you are answering this after watching, who do you think won and why? How will the results of the debate affect the primary or the long-term election?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-and-sanders-sharpen-their-rhetoric-1454548344

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/02/04/just-the-two-of-us-what-clinton-and-sanders-must-do-in-tonights-debate/

Preparing for the New Hampshire Primaries

The upcoming primary for New Hampshire will be held this Tuesday and is sparking debate about the predicted results. The state has seen a lot of turnover and changes in its demographics since the 2008 primaries and 30% of those eligible to vote in this primary were not eligible or absent in 2008. The state has also been seeing increased anxiety regarding the economy. Although it has been on of the most successful states since the recession, its boom is coming to a close and it's reflected in the voters. The minimum wage has not moved above $7.25 despite higher standards of living and being the lowest minimum wage in the Northeast. Any attempts to raise it have failed. While voters feel that New Hampshire is on track, they worry about the rest of the country. Some voters feel as though America is no longer what it once was and leaning towards supporting Trump for the way he speaks about government and is an outsider to the political process.
The New Hampshire is also complicated because of the heroin addiction problems that have come to plague the state. Heroin related deaths have increased 22% since the last year and it is a topic on everyone's mind. This will have an interesting affect on how voters as some feel that Sanders is the best choice to help with this problem but others are concerned with big government's involvement in the healthcare system.
Another twist to the electorate is the increasing number of older people and out migration of the young. Part of this is driven by the fact that University of New Hampshire has the highest in state tuition for any in state university and many college aged students are moving out to places with better financial aid and lower costs. This helps the Sanders campaign but is a smaller part of the electorate and therefore unlikely to be enough for guaranteed success in the primaries.
Currently, polls show Sanders far ahead in the lead as this state is near this Vermont senator's home state and Trump with percentages far above his competitors, but are these indicative of the future presidential primaries? How much will the issue of the economy dominate voting? Will the serious heroin problem that has come to dominate political conversations in the state weigh in on the primaries? New Hampshire primaries are known for their unexpected twists, do you predict any darkhorse candidates?
I believe that Sanders will almost certainly win as he is familiar with the people, but I do not believe that this is a good indicator of the future. Trump is less of a sure thing as his supporters are not always reliable and he seems to be losing momentum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/us/in-new-hampshire-an-anxious-political-landscape-as-voting-nears.html?ref=politics
http://www.wbur.org/2016/02/02/new-hampshire-things-to-know