Presidential Debate: September 26, 2016

Arguably the most important debate in the history of the United States has just finished, and there sure was a lot of arguing done. The first of three debates between Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican Nominee Donald Trump gave the candidates the opportunity to reintroduce themselves before America and the world to promote their candidacy for the Presidency of the United States.

Throughout the past few weeks, each candidate has taken time out of their schedule to prep for this debate. In Clinton's case this meant practicing with a Trump stand-in where she was able to solidify her responses into two minute answers as stated by the debate rules. For Trump, debate prep was less sophisticated than Clinton's. Rather than practice answers to likely questions, it seems that he spent more time answering questions in whatever way he felt was best. But which style of preparation ultimately won? That's hard to say.

From the responses I received after watching the debate with fellow students on campus, it appears as if Clinton presented herself as presidential while Trump didn't change from his usual self. Throughout the debate Clinton remained relatively calm whenever Trump interrupted her or tried to talk over her. Clinton seemed to know that using the tactics Trump is best known for, interrupting and name calling, would get her no support in the polls.

However, as some of my peers observed there were a few moments in the debate where they either agreed with Trump or saw why people might be drawn to his candidacy. Most notably when he compared the United States to a business and how he would focus on creating jobs in America rather than ship them overseas. While there are many flaws in his candidacy, it's clear that some Americans like the idea that Trump would use a business background to run the country rather than a more traditional political mindset.

Another stark difference between the two candidates is the number of facts each used when discussing their ideas and opinions on how to move this country forward. Clinton continually used as many facts about the economy and foreign affairs as she could which proved that she has taken the time to look over various briefing books and is familiar with what she is taking about. Trump in comparison used less facts and focused instead on words that generalize his stances on issues such as "bring jobs back" which is helpful in theory but barely describes plans he theoretically would implement.

So the first debate is over. What's next?

What will the second and third debates focus on that this one did not? Will either of the third party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein be on the debate stage with Clinton and Trump? Does it matter that they are or are not? Will the moderator of the next debate attempt to fact check the candidates to a higher degree than Lester Holt attempted to do tonight? Are polls going to change dramatically over the next few days or do Americans even care about what a candidate says during a debate? Does a candidate's two minute answer have the ability to change the mind of a voter or is the election already decided by the time September rolls around? The only way to find out the answer to any of these questions is to tune in for the next debate on Sunday October 9.

Day Three of the Republican National Convention

To quote Chuck Todd "This convention is a mess." 

Senator Ted Cruz carefully neglected to endorse Donald Trump during his speech at this night's convention effectively taking the momentum out of Vice Presidential Nominee Mike Pence's speech which occurred later on in the night. It was a bold move for Senator Cruz to do so so late in the game when all of the other Republican Primary candidates had already committed to endorsing whichever candidate was eventually chosen by their party. In essence, Cruz stuck to his classic filibuster style and boycotted what he disapproved of. Will this hurt the Trump campaign? Well if we look back in history to nights one and two of this convention, it seems as if these speakers can and will say anything and get away with very little damage done to their own public image or the image of Trump and his campaign. However, the bigger question seems to be 'why did the Trump campaign let Cruz speak for so long if they knew how long he was going to speak for as well as the fact that he would not be directly endorsing Trump anywhere in the speech?' Does this mean Cruz really does not believe that Trump should be the next President of the United States? Or is Cruz simply trying to set up his candidacy in 2020?

Meanwhile Governor Chris Christie's speech from the second night of the convention gained steam during the news cycle on Wednesday for his strong critique of everything Hillary Clinton handled during her tenure as Secretary of State. Some have been saying that this was his audition to be Trump's pick for Attorney General or even a potential nomination to the Supreme Court for Antonin Scalia's absent seat. The 30 second clip that has been circulating from Christie's speech is most notably when he asked the audience on the convention floor if Hillary was "Guilty or Not Guilty?" To which the audience began to chant back "Lock her up! Lock her up!" This clip and many more from Mike Pence's first national speech as the Vice Presidential Nominee will obviously make their rounds on the upcoming news cycles, but rather than go into more detail on those slightly more serious issues let's take a look at this...

Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update anchors Colin Jost and Michael Che did a special edition of Weekend Update tonight with the only and only Notorious RBG: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg! If you didn't stay up until 12:00 EST check back in a few hours where I will try to put up a link to this hilarious clip. Plus, stay tuned for next week's Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia when they will produce a second special edition of Weekend Update! 

Day Two of the Republican National Convention

"Plagiarism"

Did she or didn't she? Did Melania Trump plagiarize a significant portion of Michelle Obama's speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention? Reports early this morning which analyzed Mrs. Trump's speech from last night noticed the striking resemblance between her speech during the first night of the Republican Convention and the speech Michelle Obama gave which helped nominate her husband. (If you somehow didn't hear about this story today check out this article which clearly explains what happened). But more importantly, will this blunder matter to the Trump campaign? Does this hurt Trump's image in a way that he will not be able to simply brush off as he has done with so many other instances in this political cycle? If the Trumps eventually end up in the White House next January will this and other unfortunate speeches hurt Melania as a First Lady and make her seem less credible than First Ladies of the past? It seems as if this oversight was just that. A poorly planned speech that was not looked over by professional speech makers and was therefore analyzed by the press for the mistakes woven in it.

"Hillary Clinton"

If you thought that the Republicans would go easy on Clinton during this convention you must be living in a fantasyland. It appears as if each speaker in some way tried to increase her negative ratings in any way they could. From Donald Trump Jr.'s speech alone, he tore into the Benghazi scandal pointing out the irony of Clinton's 2008 "3 AM" campaign ad and the fact that she did not answer that most important call. Watching post convention coverage on MSNBC tonight Rachel Maddow and Brian Williams reported that the most used words were "Hillary," "Clinton," "America," "Trump," and "Donald" during tonight's Republican convention.  Of course next week during the Democratic Convention, the Democrats will surely tear into Trump in the same way. But what does it say of our political system where the most effective campaign strategy comes in the form of driving up the negative ratings of the opposite candidate? What happened to a convention where speeches were driven by a party platform that made policy proposals about how to make our country an even better place to live? Call me crazy but I believe that the average American does care about a variety of policies that affect their everyday life from education reform to healthcare to homeland security and that they are waiting for a politician to truly listen to these feelings instead of harping on the failures of others. 

Politics Took a Holiday

Or more accurately, I took a holiday from politics for the past few months. But that holiday has come to an end because America is embarking on a grand political adventure over the next two weeks.....

The Republican and Democratic Conventions!

These conventions will work to nominate Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as the Republican and Democratic runners for president, respectively. Thousands of delegates, reporters, politicians, and who knows who else will descend upon Cleveland and Philadelphia to participate in this uniquely American political process. And I'll observe all of the madness from a comfortable distance in Upstate New York.

Hillary Clinton's Univision Debate Performance

On March 9th, both of the Democratic candidates took the stage at Miami Dade College in Florida for their eighth debate. It was just one day after Senator Bernie Sanders upset win over Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Michigan Primary. But while Sanders was able to eek out a win, Clinton was still able to gain a greater number of delegates that night, mostly from her large margin over Sanders in the Mississippi Primary. After all of the primaries prior to March 15th Clinton's delegate total is at 775 while Sanders has a total of 552.

From the beginning of this debate, the moderators immediately asked pressing questioning of the candidates, wasting no time in getting started. Clinton was asked where she failed with regards to her loss in the Michigan Primary and why she has started to sound more like the Democratic nomination is already hers rather than continue to battle for it in the primaries. She responded by saying that her campaign was focusing on her other wins from that night, not her one loss in Michigan, and that this entire process is a marathon where you need to look for positive solutions to get things done. As Sanders stated just a few minutes later when asked about how his delegate count was far less than Clinton's, he said that his win in the Michigan Primary could possibly be one of the greatest political upsets in modern times. This statement and many others throughout the debate from Sanders were aimed at convincing the American public that he is by no means out of the race for the Democratic nomination even though Clinton has begun to pander to a more general audience.

Pandering was also one of the next issues brought up by the moderators when discussing Clinton's stance on immigration. Had she been "His-pandering" when she changed her stance on illegal immigrants from stating that she was "adamantly against them" in a 2003 interview to today's stance where she plans on attacking immigration reform in her first 100 days in office? Clinton fired back saying that she had supported the Dreamer Act that was proposed to Congress in 2003 and in every Congress since then, as well as stating that she is a strong supported in immigration reform. Throughout the debate on immigration Clinton frequently brought up her record on various Senate votes that she had participated in during her time in Congress. She even attempted to discredit Senator Sanders stance on immigration when she mentioned that he had voted against the 2003 Dreamer Act whereas she had voted for it. Sanders was not taking the bait however and defended his vote on that bill as well explaining what he would do with immigration reform as President of the United States.

It was clear that Clinton was put on the defensive from the beginning of the debate as a way to test her and see how well she could hold up after a surprising loss in Michigan. Her strategy was to use her Senate voting record to show how she has been in favor of immigration reform for years as well as stating that she would build off of Obama's current plans if she were to be elected president. Another strategy was to attack Sanders in as many areas as she possibly could so she could call him out on anything he said that might appear out of line, a technique called "the spread" that many debate teams, use according to an article written by James Hohmann for the Washington Post. Hohmann's article had an educated critique of the debate in general and on Clinton's performance in particular which helped to put the Democratic race in perspective. While Clinton's debate performance seemed strong there was still room for improvement, especially when it comes to how her campaign strategy should evolve over the next few weeks. Sanders proved in this debate that he too was in the race for the long run and should not be overlooked by Clinton who was beginning to change her rhetoric to a wider base in the hopes that she could skip over the Democratic convention and go straight to November.

Hillary Clinton's Performance and Media Framing of Forum Results 2/18/2016

On February 28th MSNBC hosted a town hall event for the Democratic candidates for president former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. This town hall was moderated by Chuck Todd and Jose Diaz-Balart both of whom are well known political journalists and have their own political commentary shows on MSNBC.

Unlike other Democratic debates that have occurred so far in the election cycle, this town hall was set up in a way that the candidates took a few questions from the moderators at the beginning of the night followed by questions from the audience for the remainder of the time. Senator Sanders went first and was asked a variety of questions ranging from immigration reform, his ideas on feminism, and his plans to raise the minimum wage over the next 15 years. It was unclear how this town hall would receive Sanders due to his recent image in the media being portrayed as a "single issue candidate." From the beginning Sanders denied that he was a single issues candidate and by the end of the night was able to close Clinton's national lead in the polls from 25 points in the middle of January to just 11 points in the middle of February according to NBC News.

But for a majority of media outlets, Clinton was the main focus of the night. After a double digit loss to Sanders in New Hampshire, the country was eager to see how she would perform. And perform she did. Clinton was precise and almost eager to answer as many questions as she could in a relatively honest, basic manner. When asked about the Supreme Court appointment being considered after the recent death of Antonin Scalia she said that Congress needs to do their Constitutional duty and let the process of nominating someone occur in a timely manner. When talking about this issue, Clinton acknowledged Senator Harry Reid from Nevada and multiple other Congressmen throughout the night. It seemed that this tactic was a way for Clinton to show that she has had experience working with Congress and that she would be able to do so successfully if she were to be elected president.

Clinton also stated that "like many Americans, I have evolved...in my views" when asked about gay marriage and immigration reform. These statements from Clinton were a way to depict her evolution as a politician and associate her with other like minded Americans. In an implicit way Clinton seemed to appeal to voters that have changed their minds on issues from the past to show that she has human characteristics just like everyone else and is more than the disconnected candidate the media has portrayed her as. Because Clinton was predicted to come back from her New Hampshire upset and perform well in Nevada and South Carolina, this town hall was a way for her campaign to reset themselves and begin to look at the larger election.

The Democratic Debate February 11, 2016

On Thursday night, just two days after the New Hampshire primary, Democratic candidates Senator Bernie Sanders and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the stage for their sixth presidential debate, on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, hosted by PBS News Hour and Facebook. Before this debate began, there was speculation circulating on how Clinton would do after her 22-point loss to Sanders in the New Hampshire primary. Would she remain calm during the debate and subtly make up for the votes she couldn't get in New Hampshire or would she come out blazing with a need to succeed?

It turns out Clinton used both implicit and explicit tactics to show she has what it takes to become America's next president. She took to the stage in seemingly ready to go with an opening statement that focused on breaking down all of the barriers that are in the way of the American people who are just trying to get ahead. Sanders' opening statement was similar to a point; instead he focused more on the idea that just 9 months ago he was a virtually unknown candidate and now he has been able to insight a political revolution against the establishment of the Democratic Party. The first part of the debate focused on how each candidate saw the role of the federal government in everyday Americans lives. Sanders at first did not answer this question directly but rather danced around it saying that he wanted to guarantee health care, public education, and good infrastructure, essentially implying that the federal government would grow under his presidency. Clinton meanwhile explicitly stated that under her administration the federal government would increase in size by about 40%. She also agreed with Sanders goal to guarantee health care to Americans, but didn't understand why there needed to be another health care debate in the country and why the plan that he proposes doesn't seem to add up monetarily. She instead proposed that we continue on the path that the Affordable Care Act provides, a fight she said she has been fighting since it was called "Hillarycare." The debate continued with questions surrounding Social Security, homeland security, and immigration, all important issues that both Sanders and Clinton spent time discussing their plans to solve in much more detail than it seems the Republicans tend to do when they debate.

However, some of the moments that stood out to the media were not when Clinton or Sanders described their differences on immigration or how they want to fix the growing issue of Social Security, but how each candidate conducted themselves during the debate. In a world where the 30-second soundbite could be the most news an American gets during the day, candidates must be perfectly poised 24/7 so they can get the most appealing shot on replay. To some, like myself, Clinton appeared confident and knowledgeable about the issues at hand while other such as the prominent conservative newspaper The National Review thought otherwise. They thought Clinton had a "sleepy showing" and that "she tried to trip up Sanders with detailed policy answers...but caught in a defensive crouch and struggling to explain her own campaign's shortcomings, she never really found the opening she needed." In comparison, The National Review painted Sanders as a winner whenever he said something that could criticize Clinton or put her on the defensive such as immigration reform or her ties to Wall Street with phrasing such as "he showed up" and the idea that he was "forcefully" answering questions. By using specific language the media has the ability to influence voters by describing a candidate either in a flattering or unflattering light.

Another point that the media tends to focus on, specifically when talking about the Democratic race for president, is the gender difference between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton was asked during the debate why such a large percentage of female voters were turning out in support of her opponent Sanders, rather than her. In my opinion she responded with one of the best answers I have heard when listening to a political debate on gender. Clinton essentially said that just because you are a female, that doesn't mean that it is necessary for you to vote for me, the female candidate. She instead said that women have the right to choose who they want to vote for based on their own ideals and directed the conversation to one focused on raising the standard of equality for women in this country. This answer was a refreshing break from the notion that all women must vote for Hillary Clinton based on their gender and a relatively good response to the quote from Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who said that "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other."

Overall, Thursday's Democratic Debate appeared to be much more substantive than the Republican Debates have been in recent weeks. Perhaps that's due to the candidates who appear on stage, but I think that it also has to do with the media that surrounds each parties presidential nominees. Clinton was portrayed as the De facto nominee and given free media attention for months before Sanders and his grassroots momentum grew into a national campaign gaining their own media attention, that for both candidates tends to appear slightly more professional than that of the Republicans. In contrast, the Republicans tend to be portrayed as a bit of a circus with multiple clowns running around stage at any given time. So as a student of political science I have a challenge from you: read news articles that go against what you normally believe. Try to dig deep and figure out how much of what the candidates say is really true by using sources such as FactCheck.org. This is something I plan on doing for the remainder of this presidential debate because to be an informed voting citizen you need to gather actual information from reputable sites, not just what the biased media outlets repeat every hour.

An Unexpected Surprise

Now at the Trump rally I neglected to mention one smal detail. That I was able to get a picture with the billionaire himself. As the rally ended my friend Hannah and I were going to try and get a picture with Willie Geist, one of our favorite reporters from Morning Joe. But as we got to the top of our sections stairs a woman with the Trump campaign asked us if we wanted to get a picture with him. Of course! I may not agree with 90% of what he says but given the chance to meet the man in person and even get a picture with him was an opportunity I couldn't pass up.

So we waited in line and were lead to the basement of the arena where there was a holding room and more staff members. And then he just appeared. Trump walked in to the room like this was something he had been doing his entire life, talked for about a minute, and then started taking pictures with us. I couldn't believe it. The fact that just hours ago I shook former President Bill Clinton's hand and now I was shaking Donald Trump's was almost too much to comprehend. It was a day that could only have happened in New Hampshire during the presidential primary when the political circus is in town. 

I told you I met him, he even put his arm around me!

Day Three: Donald Trump

If you weren't sure yet about how crazy a Donald Trump for President rally could be, imagine going to a rock concert with a performer who hasn't toured in years. Everyone in the arena just can't stop talking about what it's going to be like and what their idol will actually do. That is exactly how Trump's rally on Monday night went.

We were lucky enough to get VIP seating to his rally because one of the students on our trip has been volunteering for Trump for the last few weeks and knew how to get us some of the best seats in the house. As we waited for the man of the hour we got to talk with some men from the Boston area who were Trump supporters and had already been to some of his other events in New England.  At the other events these guys had been to the they said the crowds had been much more energetic, but clearly they were excited to see their favorite presidential candidate. Now I'm sure some people would expect these Trump supporters to be racist or Un-American but these guys are simply tired of politicians in this country who never seem to get anything done. They believe that because Trump has never held political office that he will be able to get more things done than those who have been in political power for so long. 

After waiting around for two hours Trump's family was introduced in preparation for The Don himself to come out. All of his family members looked like supermodels, perfectly poised to be America's next generation of political royalty. And that's when he appeared, Don Trump in all his glory. From behind a black curtain Trump proceeded to the stage where he was met with enthusiastic crowds screaming at the top of their lungs and frantically waving their signs. 

Once he started talking people calmed down and actually seemed to be listening to what his political proposals were. But of course, with supporters come protestors. One protestor yelled obscenities about Trump's wife and was subsequently removed from the arena. But as Trump said himself, without protestors "you wouldn't be able to see how many people show up to my events." 

Last night almost 5,000 people came to the Verizon Center in Manchester to see Trump in action including numerous members of the media. I was able to spot Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, completing the trifecta of seeing the entire Morning Joe cast in one day which was great for a fan of the show like me. Major Garrett and Jonathon Karl from CBS and ABC respectively were just a few of the other evening news reporters covering the event. 

Overall, Trump's raly was one for the history books. Not just because I was able to see him live but because he said one of his most obscene words in front of thousands of people and one I won't repeat here. But I think that is the best way to sum up Trump: you may have been following him for months, but you never know exactly what he's going to do or say next. 

Don't worry, I haven't been converted to a Trump supporter. (Left to right) Jenny, Frank, Me, Josh, Hannah. 

Day Three: Chris Christie

As the third day began we ventured back out into the madness of American politics see a whole variety of politicians. Our first stop was to see Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie at a small town hall event held on the floor of a factory outside of Manchester. We got to the event right as Christie was being introduced by Buddy The Cake Boss, a fellow New Jersey guy,  and Christie supporter. Christie spoke for around 20 minutes before taking questions from the audience for another hour. This event has been my favorite of the Republican candidates so far because Christie took the time to listen to each of the audience members questions and give thoughtful, detailed answers to their questions that ranged for homeland security to social security. Christie himself is also an impressive orator, knowing exactly how to work his audience and implicitly go after his opponents. 

Day One: Clinton, Burritos, and Debates

cToday was the day! Today we woke up and got on the road at 8:30 in the morning and made our way to the great state of New Hampshire (stopping along the way at The Blue Ben Diner to grab some fabulous breakfast of course!).

As soon as we crossed the border into New Hampshire from Vermont it was clear that the primary is less than a week away. We saw sign after sign for all of the major candidates: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. Driving into downtown Concord, New Hampshire's capital, it was clear that this state is invested in their legacy of being the first state to vote and how dedicated they are to this freedom.

The first campaign I was able to interact with during this trip was with the Hillary Clinton campaign with my friend Jenny. We walked to their campaign headquarters in Concord and were able to sign up right away to canvass around neighborhoods. While this was an enjoyable experience it seemed like the Clinton headquarters were not as populated as I was expecting them to be in the capital of one of the first primary states. Yes, the people we interacted with were friendly but they did not seem as energetic as I was expecting them to be about their candidate or about campaigning in general.

However, Jenny and I were able to meet and do some canvassing with an older couple named Annie and Henry. These two have been involved in politics in some way or another since George McGovern ran for president in 1972. They were what I thought more people from the Clinton campaign were going to be like. They were impressed that both Jenny and I were taking such an active interest in politics at a young age and were hopeful that our generation would be able to fix some of the problems that their generation had not. Annie and Henry were dedicated, informative, and energetic to get out the vote and make changes in our country. And I love that. To be able to have two generations working towards the same goal is something you definitely do not see everyday, but I'm glad I got to experience that moment.

After canvassing for a few hours, we returned to our hotel room in search of dinner. We found it at a Mexican Burrito shop where (I kid you not) I got a "Feel the Bern-rito." And it was pretty great! Beef, beans, cheese, rice, guacamole, and spicy mayo was a combo that you could only find in this shop; and the only dinner to get in order to truly get the New Hampshire primary experience.

Finally we ended out night with our own debate watching party at our hotel. This debate was sure to be an exciting event and it did not disappoint. It all started with a mis-calling of the candidates names forcing awkward interactions as Ben Carson was forced to wait to be called onto the stage, with the cameras focused on him the whole time, while almost all of the other candidates were called before him. Throughout the debate, Governor Chris Christie confronted Senator Marco Rubio about his inability to answer a question by simply dancing around it. These interactions showed that Christie wasn't afraid to show voters that he is still in this race and that Rubio may not be the next best candidate. While I finished watching the debate it was hard to focus on after such a long day of traveling and volunteering, so I'll try to post a good analytical article about the debate tomorrow morning.