After a double digit loss to Senator Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire almost two weeks before the Nevada Democratic Caucus, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was looking for a resurgence in her campaign. As the grassroots idealism of the Sanders campaign grew, Clinton's campaign was forced to take a step back and evaluate how her campaign needed to move forward towards the next vote. Based on exit polls received from Nevada it was clear that Clinton did a much better job than Sanders in regards to winning a diverse electorate. Voters that were women, voters that were over the age of 45, voters that were African American, voters that were registered Democrats, and voters that were also union workers, voted for Clinton more often than they voted for Sanders according to CBS News. However, Clinton was not able to gain an advantage with Hispanic voters or voters under the age of 45; Sanders continues to crush Clinton with this percentage. Yet Clinton seemed perfectly fine with this.
In her victory speech, Clinton focused on thanking her supporters both in Nevada and around the country for all of the hard work and donations that they have contributed to her campaign. She promised to "break down every barrier that holds you back" and went after the Sanders campaign stating that "we aren't a single issue country...we need more than a plan for the big banks, the middle class needs a raise." These cracks at the Sanders campaign were not the primary theme in Clinton's speech, but were instead used to highlight issues from her traditional stump speech. With the South Carolina primary and Super Tuesday rounding out the first month of official campaigning, Clinton is starting to focus on the general election in November rather than every primary between now and the convention.
Though she needs to find a way to excite young voters, particularly women, she continues to dominate the national media over Sanders. After winning three of the first four contests in the 2016 presidential election cycle, the media is realizing that Clinton still has the power to take the Democratic Nomination in July even with the growing momentum of the Sanders campaign. As the race begins to head South, the media is predicting that Clinton will dominate in almost every contest, especially during Super Tuesday. It seemed as if the media knew Clinton would win Nevada by a reasonable margin that they immediately shifted their attention to her national campaign strategies as soon as she was declared the winner in Nevada. According to Real Clear Politics, Clinton is ahead in almost every poll ranging from the Carolinas, to Michigan, to Illinois. It is clear that the media is predicting a large margin of victory in regards to pledged delegates to Clinton on Super Tuesday, but there is still the possibility that Sanders could have some surprise wins in the Northeast in Massachusetts and his home state of Vermont.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Jeb! Bush
As most of America had expected for the last few weeks, Jeb Bush ended his bid for the presidency on Saturday night after he finished fourth with just 7.8% of the vote. Though his campaign never seemed to have a real chance, Bush persevered for months trying everything he could to gain people's votes. In honor of him, The Huffington Post created an article entitled "The Top 10 Most Jeb! Moments of the 2016 Race", and because it was every bit as amazing as you think its going to be I decided to share it here on my blog. Enjoy!
Tactics and Results of Nevada and South Carolina
On Saturday February 20th the third and fourth contests of the 2016 Presidential Election took place in both South Carolina and Nevada. South Carolina, the first state in the south to vote, held a primary for the Republican field of candidates. Donald Trump came out on top winning all of the state's 50 delegates with 32.5% of the votes while Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz essentially tied for second place with 22.5% and 22.3% of the vote respectively. Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Ben Carson all came in a distant fourth, fifth, and sixth place all receiving around 7% of the vote. By the end of the night it was clear that Donald Trump, after winning two of the three first contests in this election cycle, was a force to be reckoned with. Though he refrains from using any form of political correctness this tactic has worked well for him for months because he is able to tap into the anger that most middle class Americans have been feeling towards the establishment in Washington. But will the momentum Trump seems to have last until the Republican National Convention in July? Or will one of the more establishment candidates like Rubio or Kasich be able to win enough delegates during Super Tuesday and over the next few months to dump the Trump?
Speaking of establishment candidates Jeb Bush finally dropped out of the race for president this past Saturday. With almost no support in polls nationwide and no delegates won, it was only a matter of time before Bush ended his bid. In the last few weeks Jeb tried every possible strategy to try to gain any support that he could. He tried adding an exclamation point on his campaign slogan and bringing his mother, former First Lady Barbara Bush, and his brother, former President George W. Bush, on the campaign trail with him. Unfortunately, Bush's campaign was almost doomed from the start. From his announcement, Bush never made it clear exactly what his platform would be throughout the campaign or what he wanted to accomplish if he was successful with his run for the White House. Plus, history was never on his side. Not only was Jeb the third Bush to run for president, but he chose to run in an election when outsider candidates have dominated the political field and made it almost impossible for establishment candidates to get any substantial support. Now that Bush has declared defeat, it is up to Marco Rubio and John Kasich to fight for the title of being the establishment candidate, the one who could possibly defeat Trump over the next few weeks as well as gain as much support as they can from Bush's supporters and super PACs.
Across the country in Nevada, the Democratic Party was holding their second caucus of the season between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. In the weeks leading up to this caucus the polls showed that both Clinton and Sanders were practically tied or that one candidate was leading by a small margin. However, Clinton was able to win by about 5 points on Saturday with 52.6% of the vote in comparison to Sanders' 47.3%. This win was expected by Clinton and much needed to show that her double digit defeat in the New Hampshire Primary on February 9th was not due to problems with her campaign, but rather because Sanders' home state of Vermont is neighbors with New Hampshire. Though caucus results are not as accurate as a primary vote, as was seen in Iowa where some districts were decided by the flip of a coin, Nevada was a taste of what could come for the Democratic candidates in a general election. Unlike Iowa and New Hampshire, the Nevada electorate is more diverse with a larger African American and Hispanic population. This fact is an advantage for Clinton because she has proven she can win these voters, especially because she has promised to continue President Obama's agenda if she is elected President of the United States. Clinton was also helped in part by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Though Reid did not endorse either candidate publicly, he did help push for caucus sites that were convenient for casino workers to get to. Since a higher percentage of casino workers are Hispanic this helped Clinton win on Saturday.
But just because Bernie Sanders didn't win Nevada does not mean that he is out of the race. Sanders' tactic to focus on economic issues as one of the most important platforms of his campaign has proven a successful strategy. Through this he has been able to tap in to a certain amount of anger that middle class Americans have been feeling, similarly to what Republican voters have by throwing their support behind Trump. Sanders also continues to win young voters by an astounding margin over Clinton, earning 82% of the vote in comparison to Clinton's 14% with voters ages 17-29 according to CNN. If Sanders and Clinton continue to stay within a relatively small margin of each other, their primary contest could take much longer than most political scientists thought just a few weeks ago. With South Carolina on February 27th and Super Tuesday on March 1, there are hundreds of delegates up for grabs for both candidates meaning that there may not be a decision for weeks to come.
Across the country in Nevada, the Democratic Party was holding their second caucus of the season between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. In the weeks leading up to this caucus the polls showed that both Clinton and Sanders were practically tied or that one candidate was leading by a small margin. However, Clinton was able to win by about 5 points on Saturday with 52.6% of the vote in comparison to Sanders' 47.3%. This win was expected by Clinton and much needed to show that her double digit defeat in the New Hampshire Primary on February 9th was not due to problems with her campaign, but rather because Sanders' home state of Vermont is neighbors with New Hampshire. Though caucus results are not as accurate as a primary vote, as was seen in Iowa where some districts were decided by the flip of a coin, Nevada was a taste of what could come for the Democratic candidates in a general election. Unlike Iowa and New Hampshire, the Nevada electorate is more diverse with a larger African American and Hispanic population. This fact is an advantage for Clinton because she has proven she can win these voters, especially because she has promised to continue President Obama's agenda if she is elected President of the United States. Clinton was also helped in part by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Though Reid did not endorse either candidate publicly, he did help push for caucus sites that were convenient for casino workers to get to. Since a higher percentage of casino workers are Hispanic this helped Clinton win on Saturday.
But just because Bernie Sanders didn't win Nevada does not mean that he is out of the race. Sanders' tactic to focus on economic issues as one of the most important platforms of his campaign has proven a successful strategy. Through this he has been able to tap in to a certain amount of anger that middle class Americans have been feeling, similarly to what Republican voters have by throwing their support behind Trump. Sanders also continues to win young voters by an astounding margin over Clinton, earning 82% of the vote in comparison to Clinton's 14% with voters ages 17-29 according to CNN. If Sanders and Clinton continue to stay within a relatively small margin of each other, their primary contest could take much longer than most political scientists thought just a few weeks ago. With South Carolina on February 27th and Super Tuesday on March 1, there are hundreds of delegates up for grabs for both candidates meaning that there may not be a decision for weeks to come.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
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.
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.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Back in Oneonta
After an exciting weekend spent in New Hampshire witnessing their 100th primary, our class returned home late Wednesday night. It was somewhat surreal to be back on my college's campus after being in the thick of the presidential race for so long and definitely less exciting. Waking up this Thursday morning knowing I had to attend class rather than some type of rally or town hall was a struggle, but knowing what I got to do over the weekend, I was able to get through it.
I may have mentioned this in a previous post, but while I was in New Hampshire I met a journalist name Jack Hitt who writes for the Huffington Post "Highline." My friends and I were interviewed by him when we attended the Chris Christie town hall and subsequently ran in to him at other events in New Hampshire. It turned out that he was doing the same things we were; going to any candidate events that he could and writing about them with his writing partner Kevin Baker. If you get a chance I would highly recommend you read his articles on Highline (you can get there by following the link at the bottom of this post). His articles give off the idea that he is having a conversation with his readers, telling them what he has been seeing and what he thinks of candidates and the primary process in general. And my friends and I happen to be mentioned in Day Two of his journey, which is pretty cool.
As I was in the van on the way back from New Hampshire I also had the pleasure of doing a phone interview with Casey Seiler from the Times Union, a newspaper that is based out of Albany, New York and focuses on people and issues affecting the Capitol Region, the area where I grew up. He wanted to know more about my experience in New Hampshire and about this blog, which I was extremely flattered by. His article was published in the Times Union today, Thursday February 11th both in print and online and can also be found at the bottom of this article. Mr. Seiler was also able to interview one of my classmates who is from the Capitol Region, Hannah Smith, and her experiences from New Hampshire are documented in this article as well.
Going from the nonstop action of a presidential election to the much calmer air around the campus of Oneonta is a transition that I wish I didn't have to make. Spending five days in New Hampshire definitely solidified the idea that I want to be involved in politics or the press in some form when I graduate college and maybe even to a lesser extent while I spend the next 3 years in college. So I just wanted to say thank you for reading this blog. I never thought that I would be getting noticed with it; it started out as an assignment for a class and has begun to blossom into something much more than that. I'll continue to keep you updated on the presidential election, just not to the extent I did during my trip, I am a college student after all. And maybe I even instilled in you the curiosity to learn more about politics or the presidential election process or just getting involved in your community. I hope you continue to follow along with me as this race continues because you never know what could happen next.
Jack Hitt, Huffington Post Highline article: http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/american-electoral/#day-1
Casey Seiler, Times Union article: http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/A-lesson-in-presidential-politics-6822330.php#photo-9385368
I may have mentioned this in a previous post, but while I was in New Hampshire I met a journalist name Jack Hitt who writes for the Huffington Post "Highline." My friends and I were interviewed by him when we attended the Chris Christie town hall and subsequently ran in to him at other events in New Hampshire. It turned out that he was doing the same things we were; going to any candidate events that he could and writing about them with his writing partner Kevin Baker. If you get a chance I would highly recommend you read his articles on Highline (you can get there by following the link at the bottom of this post). His articles give off the idea that he is having a conversation with his readers, telling them what he has been seeing and what he thinks of candidates and the primary process in general. And my friends and I happen to be mentioned in Day Two of his journey, which is pretty cool.
As I was in the van on the way back from New Hampshire I also had the pleasure of doing a phone interview with Casey Seiler from the Times Union, a newspaper that is based out of Albany, New York and focuses on people and issues affecting the Capitol Region, the area where I grew up. He wanted to know more about my experience in New Hampshire and about this blog, which I was extremely flattered by. His article was published in the Times Union today, Thursday February 11th both in print and online and can also be found at the bottom of this article. Mr. Seiler was also able to interview one of my classmates who is from the Capitol Region, Hannah Smith, and her experiences from New Hampshire are documented in this article as well.
Going from the nonstop action of a presidential election to the much calmer air around the campus of Oneonta is a transition that I wish I didn't have to make. Spending five days in New Hampshire definitely solidified the idea that I want to be involved in politics or the press in some form when I graduate college and maybe even to a lesser extent while I spend the next 3 years in college. So I just wanted to say thank you for reading this blog. I never thought that I would be getting noticed with it; it started out as an assignment for a class and has begun to blossom into something much more than that. I'll continue to keep you updated on the presidential election, just not to the extent I did during my trip, I am a college student after all. And maybe I even instilled in you the curiosity to learn more about politics or the presidential election process or just getting involved in your community. I hope you continue to follow along with me as this race continues because you never know what could happen next.
Jack Hitt, Huffington Post Highline article: http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/american-electoral/#day-1
Casey Seiler, Times Union article: http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/A-lesson-in-presidential-politics-6822330.php#photo-9385368
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Day Four: Bernie Sanders
The only presidential candidate we had yet to see during our time in New Hampshire, and one who we were more excited to see than most of the others, was Bernie Sanders. We had been planning to go to his primary night rally at Concord High School just a few minutes from our hotel. One of the other students on our trip, Frank, had been volunteering with the campaign for some time and was supposed to be getting a ticket to the rally in order to get a better seat, while we waited in line and went in with the general public. In order to get his ticket we had to go into Manchester to the Sanders campaign office. Yet when we got there we were met by two deputy directors who didn't seem eager to help us out. These campaign staffers weren't welcoming to us, nor did they really believe that we were there just to pick up a ticket and see how they ran their office. They told us that because it was primary day they weren't willing to give tours or be able to talk to us for very long because they were so busy, something that was extremely disappointing to us. They also did not have any tickets to give out to the event which was odd because Frank had been promised one.
Obviously this entire situation angered us and reflected poorly on the people hired by the Sanders campaign, but we were hopeful that by showing up early to the rally we would be able to get front row seats. So we drove back to Concord, got a quick dinner and headed to the high school where the rally was being held. By 5:20 we were in line outside hoping to be let in by 6:00 so that we could wait inside for the rally to start around 7:30.
Though it was a cold New Hampshire night everyone was willing to brave the weather in order to see one of the most intriguing candidates of this campaign cycle. At 6:00 the doors were opened and a security guard had us start to file in towards the metal detectors at the front entrance of the school. But right when we got to the doors the security guard said that this event was actually a ticket only event and anyone without a ticket would be turned away. We were all shocked. This had to be a joke. No where had this event been advertised as a ticket only event and at no point while we were waiting in the cold had anyone from the campaign or event come out to tell us we would only be allowed in if we presented a ticket. And we weren't the only ones in this situation. 90% of the people we had been waiting in line with did not have tickets either and had no idea that we needed them to get in.
But we weren't giving up so easily. With so few people with tickets we figured that if we just waited a little while longer the event staff would realize that the 200 people waiting outside to Feel the Bern weren't going anywhere and would have to be let in.
We waited until 7:00. Almost 2 hours in freezing weather. And to make it worse no one from the event staff had any answers as to when we might be able to get in to the event or why it had not been advertised as a ticket only event.
We were crushed. And more importantly we were frozen. So we went to our van to warm up and try again in a half hour. But when we went back, nothing had changed. Now, we were devastated.
The combination of unwelcoming staffers at the Sanders campaign office, having to wait in the cold for hours, and never being able to actually get in to the event did not leave us with a flattering image of how the Sanders campaign was being run. Now, we know that this was in no way Bernie Sanders' own fault and was most likely poor communications between various campaign staffers. But what we couldn't fathom was why we had to stand outside for so long without ever being told this event was for ticket holders only or why we never got a direct answer when we asked if there was a chance we would be let in to the event at some point during the night. Disappointed and slightly disenfranchised with the Sanders campaign, we headed back to our hotel to thaw and watch the primary results on tv.
Probably the only good thing about standing outside for 2 hours was seeing this creative sign and the shirt pictured below.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Day Four: The New Hampshire Statehouse
Since there were fewer scheduled campaign events to go to today because it was Primary Day a number of us decided to go to the New Hampshire Statehouse since it was down the road from our hotel. Being a resident of Upstate New York and living only 40 minutes north of Albany, the Capitol, I have been to the New York Capitol building countless times. The Capitol building is massive with huge, ornately decorated chambers for both the State Senate and State Assembly and an aptly named Million Dollar Staircase. The New Hampshire Statehouse in comparison is practically the size of a dollhouse.
The small yet impressive Senate Chamber.
We parked near the back of the Statehouse and were able to walk in without going through security, something you could never do in New York. Once inside we were free to walk around the three floors and explore the Senate and Representative Chambers, the Executive Office room, and the hundreds of portraits that hung on the walls. It was amazing to be in such a small Statehouse because it seemed as if democracy was right at our fingertips. Both the Senate and Represenative Chambers were significantly smaller than either of the New York ones and had a style dedicated to the colonial era whereas the New York Capitol building has a style that is almost gothic and extravagant in nature because it was constructed in the late nineteenth century.
A mural in the downstairs hallway that depicted a battle on the third day of Gettysburg. This mural was gigantic, easily 6ft tall and 9ft wide.
Political memorabilia that was displayed in the gift shop of the Statehouse.
I even got a selfie with President Obama in the gift shop!
The House of Representatives Chamber which was astounding because it held so many seats along with portraits of famous politics figures on the front wall.
A portrait of Josiah Bartlett who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 hangs in the Executive Room on the second floor.
A variety of pictures from the front of the Statehouse including one with my friend Jenny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)