After the election results became clear, many were shocked by the outcome, and for some, that shock continues today. But ever since a hiking mom and her young daughter ran into Hillary Clinton in the woods of Chappaqua, New York just after the election, Hillary-fans have flocked to the upstate New York town, hoping to catch a glimpse of or maybe even a selfie with her. And some have been really lucky!

When you go pick up your pie and the entire Clinton family is shopping 2#shopsmallbusiness #looksgreat#happythanksgiving @HillaryClinton pic.twitter.com/L9zQWLJlB2

— Linda (@lindapmgbosco) November 23, 2016

Others were determined to make a day of it no matter how long it would take.

I’m in Chappaqua!! I’ll be crouched in the goddamn woods all day, waiting for Hillary Clinton to appear & take a viral photo with me

— Zach Schonfeld (@zzzzaaaacccchhh) November 24, 2016

The chance meetings were soon called Clinton sightings, drawing parallels to some kind of game or the search for a rare animal. There’s even a Twitter account dedicated to the phenomenon that appeared recently with the handle @HRCintheWild.

Another Clinton sighting. This time at the market in Chappaqua. pic.twitter.com/xvAtGWGgCR

— Yashar (@yashar) November 24, 2016

The woman in the sun glasses received more votes for president than any white male that has ever run for the office in our history. pic.twitter.com/lPpWWvb2LO

— HRC In The Wild (@HRCintheWild) November 29, 2016

Some saw the recent round of selfies as a reminder that she should really be planning her presidency right now.

WHEN HILLARY CLINTON IS HIKING AND GROCERY SHOPPING WHEN SHE SHOULD BE PICKING A PRESIDENTIAL CABINET

— Ryan Nicole (@kangasroo) November 28, 2016

Like his wife, Bill Clinton was also happy to take some photos with fans.

Bill Clinton poses for pictures with fans in Chappaqua https://t.co/IfD3wdJ3tK pic.twitter.com/e2nwfsJEjS

— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) November 15, 2016

On Thanksgiving, Hillary posted her own picture showing signs that fans had made to support her. A very heartwarming Thanksgiving message indeed.

I was greeted by this heartwarming display on the corner of my street today. Thank you to all of you who did this. Happy Thanksgiving. -H pic.twitter.com/b69mW3Oqbf

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 24, 2016

Last week, Jill Stein petitioned Wisconsin to recount the ballots cast in the state under the suspicion of election tampering, though no significant evidence of tampering has been uncovered. The Clinton campaign said it joined the recount effort but noted that there was little hope that a recount will change anything. Stein promised to also file for recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, which were pivotal states that Donald Trump won by relatively narrow margins. While the recounts will almost certainly not matter, Hillary fans will likely keep their fingers crossed and keep hiking.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hiking for Hillary? People Try Looking for Her in the Woods appeared first on Law Street.

This November, the state of Maine “could change the face of democracy in America,” according to a recent article in Foreign Policy. Lauded as the second-most important election on November 8 by author Larry Diamond, the New England state is predicted to adopt a new voting system where gubernatorial, legislative, and senatorial candidates would be required to earn the majority of votes to secure power. Originally brought forth by a citizens’ initiative with over 61,000 signatures, the Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative (Question 5) is currently on the state ballot. If passed, Maine would become the first state to replace plurality with ranked-choice voting (RCV). Considering that Maine has a long history of multi-party elections, this hierarchal arrangement (where candidates are ranked on an ordinal scale) is designed to break away from today’s embedded two-party system–all while encouraging residents to vote for candidates they actually believe in. Not only could this measure set a new precedent for Maine politics, but it could also potentially motivate the rest of the country to redefine statewide elections.  

How It Works

If the referendum passes, the Pine Tree State would become the first to officially veer away from the “winner takes all approach” that has dominated American politics for decades. Also known as instant-runoff voting or preferential voting, Maine’s proposed system would require residents to rank political contenders in order of preference. Supporters of this approach believe it would ensure that the winner actually possesses broad appeal among voters. Already enforced in several U.S. cities and a number of countries (including Australia, Ireland, Malta, and New Zealand), many praise RCV for its potential to strengthen democratic institutions and empower less prominent candidates to fully participate in (and potentially win) political races.

In instances where a candidate does not yield more than half the votes during the first round of tallying, an “instant-runoff” would occur where the person with the least amount of support would be removed from the race. If a voter ranked the eliminated candidate as their top preference, then their vote would go  to their second-highest choice. By enforcing RCV, voters’ opinions won’t be diluted or forced to conform into a single vote. Depending on how many candidates are running, this process would repeat itself until somebody earns more than 50 percent of the votes.

Why is This Relevant to Maine & the Nation

Over the course of Maine’s history, plurality voting has allowed unpopular candidates to win by small margins. Since 1974, only two out of the past 11 elected governors earned a majority vote. During these gubernatorial races, five of these competitors came out victorious with less than 40 percent support. The most recent example of this trend is seen with Republican governor Paul LePage, whose “successes have been largely dependent on splitting the vote between Democrats and independents.” The incumbent governor won the election with 38 percent of the vote in 2010 and 48.2 percent in 2014.

Some also say that he represents a new era in Maine politics based on his hostility toward rival Democrats and racist remarks against people of color. Recently the public official made headlines for attributing Maine’s heroin crisis to black and Hispanic people, as well as vowing to veto every bill from Maine’s Democratic legislature until they approve his motion to eliminate the state income tax.

Seeing that LePage draws many comparisons to Donald Trump, it’s interesting to note that the Republican presidential nominee did not earn over 50 percent of the popular vote during the primaries and caucuses–instead he won the plurality of votes. Based on a report by FairVote, it’s possible that Trump wouldn’t have won the Republican contest if RCV was utilized based on simulated Super Tuesday results.

Possible Outcomes

A recent poll by the New Hampshire Survey Center saw that 48 percent of Maine voters were in favor of the referendum, while 29 percent were opposed to the measure and 23 percent were undecided. If implemented, ranked choice voting would restore the fundamental tenants of majority rule, requiring that officials earn an absolute majority (50 percent, plus one vote) to hold office. Voting “yes” on Question 5 would therefore make bipartisan elections less predictable by giving third parties more of a viable opportunity to participate in statewide general elections. Citizens would no longer feel dissuaded from “throwing away a vote” by voting for third-party candidates, which has been a common sentiment throughout this year’s presidential election. Instead of feeling obligated to vote for a candidate you don’t completely condone, RCV safeguards a diversity of public opinion.

“We need a system that works–where candidates with the best ideas, not the biggest bank accounts have a fighting chance,” said Dick Woodbury, who is part of The Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. “You should never have to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’ when there is another candidate you really like.”

For candidates to have successful campaigns, they will also be required to appeal to a wider range of constituents in order to receive more general support. Essentially this would eliminate strategic voting (voting for one candidate to ensure the other one loses) and discourage politicians from investing in negative campaigns against their competitors, according to the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine.

Critiques Against the Referendum

A prominent argument made against RCV involves its alleged complexity. After decades of utilizing plurality rule, voters may need to acquaint themselves with new procedures and logistics. Since RCV functions best with multi-party elections, this system would also require voters to be better educated about candidates and their platforms. Nonetheless, this could require voters to invest more time and effort in order to make informed decisions. Certain opponents, such as Maine Republican State Representative Heather Sirocki, also consider RCV to be unconstitutional based on Maine law. Sirocki argues that plurality is woven into the Maine constitution, saying that the election of governors and state senators or representatives require “a plurality of votes” to determine the winner. 

“Until recently, I assumed that all measures placed on the ballot were lawful. I was wrong,” wrote Sirocki in an op-ed featured in The Maine Wire. “Blatantly unconstitutional questions may appear on the ballot as long as enough valid signatures are certified by the Secretary of State.”

An additional constitutional concern for RCV is the manner in which the votes will be calculated. It is specified in the Maine constitution that votes must be tabulated at a municipal level. The implementation of RCV, however, could require a different process for counting ballots. Critics are particularly disapproving of this caveat due to the inflated levels of time and money required to facilitate a election. Enacting RCV would likely cost more than Maine’s current $248,000 budget for elections.

Conclusion

With the legal challenges surrounding Question 5 laid out on the table, the referendum would certainly necessitate an amendment to Maine’s current constitution. In the event that Maine votes “yes” on the initiative, its final application would be contingent upon a two-thirds approval of Maine’s legislature and voter approval at a state-wide referendum. As far as legality goes, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap remains confident that his state’s legal framework can be altered via statewide plebiscites or the legislative process.

“It’s a matter of opinion,” said Dunlap. “Formally, everything considered and passed either by the people directly or through their representatives in the Legislature is considered to be constitutional unless and until challenged successfully before the Law Court. The folks in the black robes have final say on constitutionality.”

There may be a ripple effect throughout the country if Mainers decide to pass Question 5. As the national election quickly approaches, many Americans seem dissatisfied (not to mention misanthropic) over this year’s outcome. Simply put, neither the Republican or Democratic nominee are well-liked among a majority of citizens. The federal incorporation of RCV, however, would alleviate two major criticisms of the American electoral system: ensuring that the winner truly has the approval of the electorate and empowering voters to support their first choice–regardless of whether or not they are truly capable of winning or not. If RCV were to be federally implemented someday, candidates like Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would possibly be better equipped to someday compete against today’s uncompromising bipartisan culture.

Resources

Ballotpedia: Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative, Question 5 (2016)

Bangor Daily News: Maine Group Launching Campaign for Ranked-Choice Voting

Bangor Daily News: LePage: I’ll Veto Every Democratic Bill Until Legislature Agrees to Kill Income Tax

FairVote: Simulating Instant Runoff Flips Most Donald Trump Primary Victories

Foreign Policy: The Second-Most Important Vote on Nov. 8

League of Women Voters of Maine Education Fund: Ranked Choice Voting Basics

The Maine Wire: Ranked Choice Voting: Wrong for Maine & Blatantly Unconstitutional

New York Times: How Controversial is Gov. Paul LePage of Maine? Here’s a Partial List

Portland Press Herald: Our View: Ranked-Choice Petition First Step Towards Reform

Portland Press Herald: Ranked-Choice Voting: Costly, Complicated, Undemocratic 

Portland Press Herald: Question 5 Advocates Try to Allay Confusion About Ranked-Choice Voting

Vox: Maine Could Become the First State in the Nation to Have Ranked Choice Voting

 Editor’s Note: This article was updated on 10/31/2016 to clarify language on the possible ramifications of Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. 

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Citizens’ Initiative in Maine Calls for Ranked-Choice Voting appeared first on Law Street.

Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican and former congresswoman, has said that voting for Hillary Clinton in November will lead to more sexual assaults. According to Bachmann’s opinion, the Democrats are using Trump’s comments about women–and now sexual assaults–to make women vote for Clinton. But she says if they do, the country would apparently become way worse for women.

“I believe that Hillary Clinton will set a standard in this country that will lead to more sexual assaults against women because she will be setting an anti-biblical agenda,” she said in a radio interview on Tuesday on the Christian show “Stand In The Gap.”

The utter moral bankruptcy of the allegedly Christian Right has never been more hilariously blatant. https://t.co/UzRJzqceWB

— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) October 13, 2016

When asked about a report that states that the recent revelations about Trump’s behavior in the past have created a gender divide among voters, she said it was made up of lies, and was a conspiracy theory funded by George Soros. She also claimed that Trump’s alleged assaults were nothing in comparison to Bill Clinton’s past actions, and accused him of criminally assaulting women.

Bachmann’s recent statements about Trump in the wake of the 2005 audio recording of Trump have left many people upset…

Michele Bachmann called #TrumpTapes “bad boy 11 year old locker room talk.” I teach 11 year olds. Pretty sure they don’t brag a/b assault.

— De Elizabeth (@deelizabeth_) October 8, 2016

Michele Bachmann is trending. This is proof we all died in the predicted rapture of 2011 and THIS is hell.

— Dorianna Gray (@blurbette) October 8, 2016

…and some just speechless.

Dear @CNN, I have NO INTEREST in anything @MicheleBachmann has to say about anything till the end of time, ad finitum, yada yada. Thank you.

— Girls Really Rule. (@girlsreallyrule) October 11, 2016

The man who interviewed Bachmann, Sam Rohrer, agreed that trying to make women vote for anyone else than Trump is a satanic effort to divide Evangelical homes. Bachmann also said:

This is an effort by Hillary Clinton supporters and George Soros, through Sojourners and other so-called Christian organizations, to divide us. These are lies and we, as Christians, need to recognize that this is a lie and a deception and we need to wake up and resist these lies

Michele Bachmann used to run a gay conversion center with her husband in Minnesota and has previously made headlines with bizarre statements like claiming that the Lion King is gay propaganda, that visiting Iraq was like to going to the Mall of America because there was marble and water everywhere, and that God picked Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michele Bachmann Claims Voting For Hillary Will Lead to a Rise in Sexual Assaults appeared first on Law Street.

After a compromising audio recording from 2005–in which Donald Trump brags about groping women–was revealed last week, Trump had no other option than to apologize. But it nevertheless made several Republicans withdraw their support for him. After hearing the recording, House Speaker Paul Ryan said that he hopes Trump “works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests,” which made John Oliver burst out in a wordy monolog on Sunday, barely stopping to take a breath.

“It is too late in absolutely every way,” John Oliver said of the recent round of un-endorsements. “First, it’s October of an election year, and second, he’s fucking 70.”

He went on to show clips of different Republicans revoking their support of the Republican nominee after hearing the tape. Many did so with words like, “I have five daughters,” or, “I have a wife, I have a daughter, I have a mother, and I have five sisters.”

It should not be necessary to have to go through, as Oliver says, “such an elaborate six-degrees-of-separation exercise to arrive at someone with a Y chromosome that you can feel sorry for,” to think it’s not okay to talk like that about other human beings.

Here’s the full clip:

John McCain wrote in a statement on Saturday that he will not vote for Trump. In an earlier statement, he said: “He alone bears the burden of his conduct and alone should suffer the consequences.” For that, John Oliver called him out. “He alone does not bear the burden of his conduct because he alone did not make himself your party’s nominee,” he said to Republicans who’ve supported Trump up until now. “All of you have consistently supported him through some absolutely heinous shit.”

He added:

In his very first campaign speech, he called Mexicans ‘rapists’–and that was just the beginning. Because since then, he’s proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants; advocated for killing terrorists’ families, which is, by the way, a war crime; argued for waterboarding even if it doesn’t obtain information because, and I quote: ‘they deserve it anyway;’ and just this week he stood by his claims that the Central Park Five were guilty despite the fact that DNA evidence has since exonerated them.

At this point, no one can pretend to be shocked by Donald Trump’s behavior, especially not the people that have stood by him despite wildly offensive comments that have all but become the signature of his campaign.

He ended by saying that this is essentially the logical conclusion of the election cycle:

The first female presidential nominee versus the human embodiment of every backward, condescending, ‘Mad Men’-esque boys’ club attitude that has ever existed, rolled into one giant, salivating, dick size–referencing, pussy-grabbing warthog in a red power tie.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver Rips Republicans Who Waited Until Now to Un-Endorse Trump appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Law Street Media is attending both the RNC and DNC conventions, and bringing Law Street readers the inside scoop. We’ll be doing day-by-day rundowns and exclusive features. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat for even more content.

Here’s a look at the second day of the festivities, courtesy of Law Street reporters Alexis Evans and Anneliese Mahoney:

Protests Continued Around Philly

Given the divisive nature of the Democratic National Convention, protests continued around the city of Philadelphia for much of the time we were there. These events ranged from showing continued support for Bernie Sanders, to demonstrations against Israel, to protests against drone warfare. Here are some pictures from near the Pennsylvania Convention Center, where part of the convention took place:

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

Image courtesy of Alexis Evans for Law Street Media

Was this the Most Powerful Speech of the Convention?

Hillary Clinton was, quite obviously, billed as the headliner for the last night of the DNC. But one of the most powerful speeches came from Khizr Khan, the father of Army Captain Humayun Khan. Captain Khan, a Muslim American, died serving our country in Iraq. Khan’s powerful speech was possibly one of the strongest rebukes against Donald Trump yet–everyone particularly loved the moment when he challenged whether the Republican nominee has ever read the U.S. Constitution, and then offered Trump his own pocket version. Put simply: if you want to see one of the best moments of the convention, you need to watch this speech.

A DNC highlight: Khizr Khan spoke as a Muslim father who had lost his son in war. Here’s the full video https://t.co/EabNEsIYzX

— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) July 29, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Speech Riled up the Crowd

Clinton’s speech seemingly started a bit slow, but quickly picked up gusto. But regardless of what you think of Clinton’s politics, it truly was a historic moment. Watching Clinton accept the Democratic nomination on the national stage was a monumental moment for many women (and men!) in the U.S. Here are some of the reactions:

@HillaryClinton we noticed the historical reference in wearing all white. We feminists thank you. #ImWithHer pic.twitter.com/bd78CDaFvb

— Laurel Davila, CPA (@laureldavilacpa) July 29, 2016

A woman’s place is in the White House. #ImWithHer

— Nev Schulman (@NevSchulman) July 29, 2016

My great grandmother walked 10 mi from her farm 2B among the first women allowed to vote. Think about that & how far we’ve come. #ImWithHer

— (((#BoycottTrump))) (@puppymnkey) July 29, 2016

My wife and two daughters watching. My youngest daughter asked, “Is she taking on that bad man?” #ImWithHerpic.twitter.com/SrdkLEwIvw

— Geoffrey Colon (@djgeoffe) July 29, 2016

We Performed a Card Stunt?

When we arrived at the arena last night, there were packages taped to all of our chairs. Was it a present?

No, it was a “card stunt.” Here were the instructions:

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

Then we received instructions about what exactly we were supposed to do–which were unnecessarily long and complicated when the point was just “when we say so, hold up your card.”

When it came time to do the “card stunt” it didn’t go so well, mostly because a lot of people had opened their cards beforehand, a lot of people didn’t try, and also because honestly, trying to get about 50,000 people to hold things up in unison is very tricky.

[P] Analysts are still trying to decipher what that final card stunt at the DNC was supposed to spell.

— Paul and Storm (@paulandstorm) July 29, 2016

But, in case you were wondering, here was what it looked like to those of us who held up our cards: 

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

THERE WERE SO MANY BALLOONS

After Clinton’s speech, a bunch of balloons were released from the ceiling. This was very exciting.

THERE ARE SO MANY BALLOONS #DemsInPhillypic.twitter.com/5kEP5ocDl8

— Anneliese Mahoney (@amahoney8672) July 29, 2016

But we weren’t the only ones who were excited. The politicians down on the floor had a wonderful time playing with the massive balloons as well, particularly Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine.

Tim Kaine is just lettin’ loose! https://t.co/LIFy6wWHVG

— Matt Fuller (@MEPFuller) July 29, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s up at the DNC?: Law Street’s Day 4 Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday night it became all but official: Hillary Clinton at last became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and the first woman to win a presidential nomination for a major political party. Out of the six states that voted on Tuesday, Clinton won four.

”Tonight’s victory is not about one person, it belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible,” she said in a speech at a rally in Brooklyn on Tuesday night.

Clinton won California, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota, while Bernie Sanders won Montana and North Dakota.

Clinton has already had a long career in politics–as first lady, senator, secretary of state, and two times as a candidate for president. And it hasn’t been without obstacles, ranging from her husband’s alleged affairs and the Lewinsky scandal in 1998, the eight hour questioning over her handling of the Benghazi terror attacks in 2012 by the Republicans (which gave birth to the GIF below), and most recently the use of her private email server for classified State Department business.

Well this is just a tremendous GIF. #BenghaziCommittee pic.twitter.com/Bnpi6rcQ43

— Dan Zak (@MrDanZak) October 22, 2015

One big issue for Clinton has been falling numbers in surveys about her trustworthiness. In a national poll in March, only 37 percent of participants said they think she is an honest and trustworthy person, which is a notable low. But that didn’t stop her from securing the nomination.

What’s next?

The next step for Clinton is to try and win over the Bernie supporters, which is easier said than done considering his supporters don’t seem to trust her. Sanders has done better in the primary than many had dared to hope for, and many supporters have said they would rather vote for Trump than for Clinton, perhaps in an attempt to push Clinton further to the left. Either way, she may need Sanders’ help and endorsement to win over some young liberals that would prefer him in office.

Let’s keep making history, together.https://t.co/7IIvZVW3HY

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 8, 2016

Reports came Monday night from the AP that Clinton had won the nomination, based on votes from superdelegates who actually haven’t cast their votes yet, since that will officially happen at the Democratic National Convention in July. This upset Sanders supporters, and his advisers worried the news would affect the voter turnout on the Tuesday. The possibility that superdelegates can change their minds is what has kept Sanders’ side going, and his campaign manager Michael Briggs said in a statement on Monday:

It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgment, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee’s clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer.

On Tuesday night, Sanders still pledged to stay in the race until the very end, and thanked all his supporters for being part of a political revolution. The next, and last, primary election will be held in Washington D.C. on June 14.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary Clinton Becomes First Woman to Clinch the Presidential Nomination appeared first on Law Street.

Last night’s Democratic primaries ended with victory for Sanders in Oregon, and for Clinton in Kentucky–although she finished that primary with only half a percentage point more than Sanders. The fact that Sanders keeps winning some states points, according to some, to weaknesses in Clinton’s strategy. But more importantly, it indicates that a big group of voters still want Sanders in the White House and agree with his ideas, so maybe it’s not over quite yet. And in a speech in California, Sanders once again asserted that he would not give up until the last vote is cast, saying “Don’t tell Secretary Clinton, she might get nervous–I think we’re going to win California.”

As of now, Clinton has a total count of 2,291 delegates compared to Sanders’ 1,528–this count includes superdelegates. There are 946 delegates still up for grabs. It has long been seen as a matter of course that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, but as Sanders keeps going strong and party unification seems far away, tensions have increased between the two sides. Last Saturday it boiled over for some Sanders supporters, who started revolting after a number of Sanders delegates were deemed ineligible by throwing chairs and yelling at the Democratic convention in Nevada. They claimed that the elections are rigged and expressed death threats aimed at the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party, Roberta Lange.

Sanders’ seemingly mellow response to the violence has surprised and upset many. He only spent one sentence on it in a press release on Tuesday, but focused mainly on the same thing the angry supporters had been saying, namely how the party interfered with a fair and Democratic process. He was urged by some Senators and party leaders to take control of his supporters. Some voices in the Democratic Party also asked the Bernie supporters themselves to be sensible and support the candidate who gets the most votes and delegates, since it is more important that the party stands united against the Republicans.

After all, the results in Kentucky and Oregon do show that Clinton still is the probable nominee. To have an actual chance to win the whole thing, Bernie would have needed a much bigger margin in Oregon–over four times bigger than it was. But the fact that he is still running means that Clinton needs to divide her focus between beating Sanders in the remaining states, unifying the Democratic Party, and fighting Trump–all tasks that will certainly continue to take some extra effort.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sanders Wins Oregon, Clinton Wins Kentucky: Party Struggles with Unity appeared first on Law Street.

In a five-minute long YouTube video called “No Regrets,” Ted Cruz seems to be declaring that he will be back sooner than expected. The video is a goodbye from Cruz’s campaign staff and features smiling (and crying) people, Mr Cruz himself, and campaign manager Jeff Roe. And a very filmic, melodramatic soundtrack.

Jeff Roe talks about having no regrets, even if you lose, and calls his experience a “nearly regret-free campaign.” He says that Cruz didn’t lose…only the campaign for presidency did. Ted Cruz officially dropped out of the race on May 3, but will now spend his days preparing for the 2018 Texas Senate election, which he filed to run in on May 11.

Cruz praises his campaign team and with tears in his eyes calls it the best in the world, saying, “…At the end of the day, you will look in the mirror and be proud of having been a part of this team.”

The video ends very ominously (or perhaps hopefully for some), with the message “To be continued.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz Says Goodbye to his Campaign in Nostalgic 5-minute Video appeared first on Law Street.

The primaries in West Virginia last night ended with victories for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Even though Hillary Clinton leads with a pretty much insurmountable margin, Sanders’s recent victories show that he still has strong support from voters, and he has pledged to not give up until the nomination is officially decided.

This means Clinton has to divide her focus between winning the Democratic nomination on the one hand, and on the other, defeating Donald Trump in the general election. For Trump, it was an easy win in both West Virginia and Nebraska last night–winning more than 75 and  60 percent of the vote respectively. His success comes despite rumors that Ted Cruz might get back into the race if the results turned in his favor. Which they didn’t.

Here’s a recap of what went on last night:

• In West Virginia, Sanders won almost every demographic. One big reason is concern about the economy and the state’s large population of working class households and coal workers. Some argue that Clinton alienated coal workers in March when she commented that her climate policies would put many coal miners out of business.

• Even though Sanders won big last night, he now needs more delegates than remain in the coming elections to have a chance to beat Clinton in pledged delegates alone. Otherwise, he will need to win two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates and also win over some superdelegates.

• About three-quarters of Democrats in West Virginia said they did not want the next president to continue Obama’s policies, and four in 10 want less liberal policies, two groups that did not favor Clinton.

• Trump’s victories do not mean everything is under control for the GOP. Polls show concern from Republican voters–with 58 percent of voters in West Virginia feeling that the party is divided but will be able to unify later on, while only half of the voters in Nebraska believed that it will be able to do so.

Next up is the Kentucky primary for the Democrats and the Oregon primary for both parties, which will take place on May 17.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Small Boost for Sanders, Who’s Determined to Keep Going to the End appeared first on Law Street.

Perhaps no public figure has received as much criticism and vitriol over such a long period of time as Hillary Clinton. Clinton has been nationally famous since the 1980s, and internationally famous since her first day as First Lady of the United States. In her stump speeches and TV appearances, Clinton chalks the near-constant mudslinging up to oppositional Republican forces who are threatened by her ability to enact real change. And though it may sound trite at this point in the campaign due to repetition, sexism is still a real and damaging force, and may contribute to some of these efforts. Of course, that can’t be true for every line of attack–not every criticism is a right-wing conspiracy designed to slander the former secretary of state. So which is the truth–or could it be a mixed bag of libelous fiction and legitimate fact? Let’s evaluate Clinton’s history of responding to sexual assault and rape by trying to determine the truth, and what they might mean about Clinton’s candidacy and presidency.

Before I dive in, I’ll try to pre-empt some bias–as it stands, I like Hillary Clinton. I know that for some reason, saying you support the efforts of the frontrunner of The Democratic Party (and the most likely person to be our future president) is a divisive statement, but it’s something I should acknowledge. I wasn’t always set on Mrs. Clinton, and my support isn’t unmovable, but her levelheaded approach to policy reform and breadth of executive experience appeal to me. I like Bernie Sanders, and I respect him as a politician. He’s represented the state of Vermont loyally for decades, but I find myself doubting whether he’d make progress on his lofty plans with Congress, and wonder if he has enough foreign policy clout to serve as our Commander in Chief.

Still, the internet can be a toxic place for a Hillary Clinton supporter. The seemingly cult-like online presence of Sanders fans is suffocating to anyone voicing support for his opponent. In the real world, Clinton leads Sanders nationally, and has fantastic momentum in the delegate count, but the subset of voters who are active online paint a very different picture. Know that I’m not a blind supporter of Mrs. Clinton, and that I believe her to be a flawed person.

Most famously, Clinton’s husband’s sex scandal has also become her cross to bear. It’s no shock to the American people at this point that President Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. At the time that the affair was first breaking to the public, Hillary Clinton argued that the claim was yet another attempt by a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to tarnish her husband’s reputation. Then, as evidence to support Ms. Lewinsky’s claims grew, Clinton told the press that she had been misled by her husband, and she publicly committed to her marriage in spite of her husband’s indiscretions, taking the role of “the good wife.” Whether Clinton was truly unaware of the goings-on between her husband and Ms. Lewinsky, and whether Hillary and Bill are in love and devoted to each other is anyone’s guess. It’s equally reasonable to think that the former President and his wife have successfully moved on from the scandal as it is to think that their relationship is rocky and held together by political promise. Either way, I don’t think that the personal marital strife of the couple reflects poorly on Hillary Clinton’s intelligence or leadership.

The larger concern borne out of the Lewinsky scandal is Hillary Clinton’s attitude toward women leveling accusations against her husband. On the campaign trail these days, she tells crowds that rape victims should be believed and supported.

Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. https://t.co/mkD69RHeBL

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 23, 2015

That proves troubling when faced with Juanita Broaddrick’s 1978 rape accusations against Clinton’s husband, which came to light two decades later. This created a conundrum for her: if these claims are false, standing by your husband is the right thing to do. If the claims are true, disbelieving a rape victim is heartless, wrongheaded, and reprehensible. The only response from Bill or Hillary to these claims came through President Clinton’s lawyer, who said “Any allegation that the president assaulted Juanita Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false.”

A person in a position as powerful as president is a lightning rod for false accusations, but it’s also true that a president’s influence could be used to cover up sexual indiscretions as well as acts of sexual violence. Knowing that both of those things are true, it would be extremely difficult to navigate charges made against your extremely powerful husband. There is no evidence to show that Hillary Clinton threatened or intimidated Broaddrick into silence. At the time, Clinton was supporting Anita Hill during her testimony against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, so it’s tough to argue that Hillary was completely unsupportive of women or even specifically victims of sexual harassment and assault. Many online rags will argue that Hillary personally sicced private investigators on Bill’s accusers, but the only concrete statement on that comes from a 1998 Matt Lauer interview:

I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.

That’s certainly not the “love and kindness” angle that Clinton is espousing now, but it’s not inherently criminal or evil. While false rape accusations are exceedingly rare, they do happen, so though it’s very disappointing to hear Clinton say these things, it would only be truly unforgivable if Clinton knew that these accusations were true, and actively tried to bury them. Criticizing Hillary Clinton for her comments about rape accusers in the nineties is absolutely fair game, and shows pretty clearly that in many areas of women’s issues, Hillary Clinton was certainly part of the problem.

For a candidate whose campaign often puts women’s issues at center stage, Clinton’s comments from twenty years ago show that she has been on the offensive against specific women accusing her husband. Whether she’s learned from the backlash, or simply learned to hold her tongue, her policy decisions and voting record show that she’s been a defender of women for decades, turning the feminist corner and leading the charge among the 2016 candidates. While her record on equal pay legislation, maternity leave, and global women’s rights is something she can proudly tout, some of Mrs. Clinton’s attitudes and comments from the 90s are absolutely disheartening, but not disqualifying.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Should we Make of Hillary Clinton’s Record on Rape Victims? appeared first on Law Street.

This election year is the year of the conspiracy: Antonin Scalia’s lack of autopsy prompted some to think he was murdered by President Barack Obama, Donald Trump is supposedly part of the Democratic Party’s attempt to  infiltrate the GOP to make it destroy itself, and now some people are theorizing that Ted Cruz is none other than the Zodiac Killer.

The Zodiac Killer… we all know him as the infamous and mysterious serial killer who wreaked havoc in California in the 1960s and early 70s–who killed five people for sure but may have killed as many as 37. The killer also sent letters to California papers with coded messages, referring to himself as “Zodiac.”

A tweet in 2013 seems to be the origin of the theory, according to the Daily Dot, which traced the meme.

#CPAC Alert: Ted Cruz is speaking!! His speech is titled: ‘This Is The Zodiac Speaking’

— Red Pill America (@RedPillAmerica) March 14, 2013

As Cruz became more famous so did the theory. There is even a hashtag dedicated to the similarities between the two: #ZodiacTed.

Wake up America #ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/l7qqqXpDQk

— Griffin (@NotGriffinNope) February 2, 2016

This was an amazing moment from the #GOPDebate tonight. #ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/4DUgyxAo2k

— Bill Wetzel (@billthebutcher2) February 26, 2016

People are starting to finally ask the real questions, like: if he isn’t the Zodiac killer, then why hasn’t he denied it?

If Ted Cruz isn’t the Zodiac Killer, then why hasn’t he denied it? https://t.co/jCm2uRWOux#ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/3EWcxDoecx

— Esquire Magazine (@esquire) February 25, 2016

Public Policy Polling, a polling firm that made a name for itself by adding funny questions onto the end of its surveys, included a question about Ted being the Zodiac Killer in a recent poll in Florida.

We are finding many Floridians can not rule out the possibility, although few are convinced of guilt https://t.co/OPsWIl97Sy

— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) February 25, 2016

According to PPP, nearly 40 percent of respondents think it’s possible that Cruz is the famous serial killer–10 percent believe for sure that they are one in the same, and 28 percent just aren’t sure yet. On the other hand, 62 percent of Floridians don’t believe he is the Zodiac Killer (well, +/- the 3.1 percent margin of error).

Maybe they just haven’t seen the evidence yet.

Unfortunately, as the Washington Post reports, Ted Cruz is probably too young to be the Zodiac Killer. The first confirmed killing was back in 1968 when Cruz was a young negative two years old–according to his released birth certificate. But those things can be modified, right?

Ted Cruz also just wasn’t in the right place at the right time. He was born in Canada and the killings took place in California. And as a youngin, creating a cipher would probably have been far too advanced. However, what if the cipher was really just a bunch of baby babble? (Is that why it still hasn’t been broken?!)

I have no choice, though, to say that Ted Cruz is likely NOT the Zodiac Killer, but until he denies it, we really can’t rule it out completely.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz Hasn’t Denied that He is the Zodiac Killer appeared first on Law Street.

Campaign season is upon us, and that means plenty of rallies and debates…and hilarious protest signs. Each of the candidates is bound to have someone show up to a rally donned in a creative outfit or holding an angry sign to expose the candidates’ supposed wrong doings (or in one case, their secret acting career in “The Office”). Nonetheless, protesters never cease to amaze us with their bizarre connections and the unique ideas for protests. Here are some of our favorites from this year’s election cycle so far:

Ted Cruz likes Nickelback

NICKELBACK Employee of the Month. January 2016.#Election2016#Nickelback4Presidentpic.twitter.com/L4j2Y7hKbX

— Nickelback (@Nickelback) January 12, 2016

Obviously, if Ted Cruz likes Nickelback, that disqualifies him as a legitimate candidate for the presidency. Will he really be taken seriously by other world leaders? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves now.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Best Campaign Rally Protest Signs of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a nonprofit legal advocacy group focused on fighting against hate groups and intolerance in American society, recently announced that there was a surge in hate groups in 2015, as well as a rise in “patriot” groups. The SPLC reported that there were 892 active hate groups in 2015, a 14 percent increase from the year before. These findings track well (and depressingly) with the contentious–and in some cases, hateful–rhetoric being consistently employed in the current 2016 primaries.

This reported rise actually comes after the number of hate groups has been steadily decreasing for some time, roughly the last decade or so. The SPLC warned that this growth in hate groups comes in part from the events of 2015–including several highly publicized terrorist attacks and the issues of national security, racism, and policing that have been front and center in the 2016 primary debates. The report stated:

The demonization of Muslims, Latinos, immigrants and others became commonplace in 2015. Presidential candidate Donald Trump made headlines with a call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and his description of Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug dealers. He even cited a bogus ‘poll’ by the Center for Security Policy that falsely claimed that a quarter of American Muslims support violent jihadists such as the members of the Islamic State.

There are a wide range of groups included on the list, from all sides of the political spectrum, including “neo-Nazis, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, Klansmen and black separatists.”

SPLC releases new count of hate groups operating in America via @getgln https://t.co/pGkZ2dEZhE pic.twitter.com/3NcSTwImuE

— dorothy cook (@jcbme) February 18, 2016

There has also been more attention on “patriot” groups, which the SPLC reported are growing as well. Earlier this year, a “patriot” group took over a wildlife refugee in Oregon and conducted a roughly month-long standoff with federal authorities.

Check out fellow Law Streeter Mike Sliwinski’s explanation of the Oregon situation here.

While SPLC’s report is helpful, and certainly concerning, it is worth noting that it isn’t necessarily able to fully summarize the spread of hate in the United States. Many people are being radicalized online–a group to share or act on your views may not be necessary when there are chat rooms and blogs readily at your disposal. The SPLC recognizes that, however, pointing out to Dylann Roof as an example of someone who was radicalized without being part of a physical group. Heidi Beirich, the SPLC’s Intelligence Project Director has stated, “It could be that in 10 years a hate map, a hate list, doesn’t make any sense because people aren’t in groups anymore.”

But for  now, the SPLC continues to track hate groups across the U.S.–and given the fact that they appear to be growing, it’s certainly a laudable undertaking.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Hate Groups Grew in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

If you had any doubt that politics are more like “Veep” than “The West Wing,” Jeb! Bush resoundingly proves that awkward tragicomedy is the reigning genre of Washington. Constantly avoiding comparisons to his older brother, taking his mother along for campaign appearances, and struggling with a “glasses-on or glasses-off” wardrobe choice, Jeb!’s presidential campaign feels more like a kid desperately trying to run for class president after his brother ran a few years ago promising free pizza for lunch and ended up invading the neighboring middle school. You might find Jeb! listed in the thesaurus as an antonym for suave—and his total inability to hide how poorly he is doing gives him a touch of humanity that is never afforded to a frontrunner. Here, we’ve collected the most “Jebby” moments of the 2016 campaign, for your cringe-inducing pleasure.

“You might swing my vote”

This video (which has no sound, don’t worry) shows a potential voter telling Jeb! that his vote just may have just been swung. This admission of potential interest was enough to brighten Jeb!’s face (and likely his entire week), causing him to jog over to the man with a gleeful expression and wrap him in a bear hug. Still, giving away a hug for a vote is pretty cheap compared with the $2,800 Jeb! ended up spending per vote in Iowa.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Jebbiest Jeb! Moments of the 2016 Race appeared first on Law Street.

Now that we are less than a week away from the Iowa caucuses, the first vote in the 2016 primary season, it is important to know why caucuses are different from primaries and why those differences are important. While both formats serve the same purpose–holding votes to nominate a presidential candidate–there are several misconceptions that may lead to some surprises when results are announced. So, read on to learn about the differences between caucuses and primaries.

The simple difference between the two is that primaries are run by the state government and caucuses are under the purview of state party organizations, namely the Republican and Democratic parties. Now this might seem like a minor distinction, but it does have some influence on who actually turns out to vote, which ultimately can affect the outcome.

The primary system is different from the general elections that most Americans are familiar with. For example, in primaries and caucuses voters cast their ballots for delegates who represent the candidates. Generally speaking, that is the same as voting directly for the candidate, as the delegates go on to formally nominate their candidate at the Democratic and Republican conventions later in the year. But delegate selection varies by state and can range from being proportional to the number of votes cast for a candidate across the state to a winner-take-all system. The point here is not to go into detail about all these variations, but rather to acknowledge that the rules can vary widely by party and by state.

For example, for Democrats in Iowa, vote counting is done by a headcount and caucus-goers can see where others stand. The process can also get pretty complicated. For example, the Democratic caucus in Iowa has a threshold for “viable candidates.” In most of the state’s precincts, if one candidate does not get 15 percent of the room’s vote, his or her supporters are free to pick a different candidate. This rule could prove important come next Monday because as the gap between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders narrows in Iowa, Martin O’Malley supporters could decide the outcome. O’Malley, the former Governor of Maryland, has rarely polled above 5 percent in Iowa.

What is arguably more important than these idiosyncrasies for someone watching the primary process unfold is the key difference between caucuses and primaries. The biggest and most important difference is voter turnout. Put simply, turnout is much, much lower in states that hold caucuses and tends to be less representative of the general population.

Researchers at Harvard’s Kennedy School took a closer look at primary election turnouts in a 2009 study. The authors found that presidential primaries have notably low turnout relative to general elections, something that is particularly true for states with caucuses. In 2008, the most recent election without an incumbent president running, in the 12 states where both parties held caucuses, the average turnout was just 6.8 percent of eligible voters. While primaries tend to have higher rates of turnout relative to caucuses, average turnout is considerably lower than general elections, particularly for primaries held toward the end of the primary season.

The Iowa caucus had a record-breaking turnout that year, but even then it only reached 16.3 percent of eligible voters. The researchers provide a pretty stark summary of their findings:

In percentage terms, Iowa’s turnout was hardly earthshaking—only one in six of the eligible adults participated. The Democratic winner, Barack Obama, received the votes of just 4 percent of Iowa’s eligible voters. Mike Huckabee, the Republican victor, attracted the support of a mere 2 percent of Iowa adults. Nevertheless, the 16.3 percent turnout level was not only an all-time Iowa record, it was easily the highest percentage ever recorded for a presidential caucus, and about eight times the average for such contests

Because a caucus is an event hosted and run by political parties, attendance is more than just casting a vote. In fact, the process can take several hours as state parties deal with party business and people have the opportunity to give speeches to try and persuade voters to back their candidate. In contrast, a primary more closely resembles a regular election–you show up to a polling location, ask for your party’s ballot, then cast your vote.

So why does all of this matter? The conventional wisdom suggests that when turnout is lower a certain type of voter tends to participate, namely those who are more extreme than the average voter. There’s some evidence to back this up as well. BYU professors Christopher Karpowitz and Jeremy C. Pope conducted a survey of Americans and matched the respondents to state voter files to actually identify those who actually participated in primaries and caucuses. They, not surprisingly, found that those who attended caucuses were more ideologically extreme than voters in primaries. While this may not dramatically affect the outcome of primary elections, it is an important finding to keep in mind when talking about the primaries.

This is also particularly important in the context of polling because pollsters often have a difficult time identifying who a likely voter actually is. Because of that, poll samples tend to be broader than the small group of voters who participate. It is often important to look at how polls identify likely voters and acknowledge the fact that it is extremely difficult to identify and make contact with the small number of Iowans who show up on caucus day. Polls, particularly those conducted early on, can have a very hard time predicting election outcomes.

Want to Learn More?

Josh Putnam wrote an excellent article for the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog breaking down everything you could ever want to know about presidential primary elections.

Putnam also runs FrontloadingHQ, a blog that dives into the minutia of the primary process as well as state and party rules.

The Council on Foreign Relations published a nice breakdown of the role of delegates in the nominating process back in 2008, most of which holds true today.

The New York Times has the full 2016 primary schedule, which you can even add to your Google calendar if you’re into that kind of thing.

For more details on voter turnout in past elections check out the United States Election Project.

The Pew Research Center has a great analysis of likely voters and their importance to polling.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2016 is Here: What are the Differences Between Caucuses and Primaries? appeared first on Law Street.

Governor John Kasich appears to be officially going after Trump, and going after him with a vengeance. He just released a new ad, “Trump’s Dangerous Rhetoric,” that slams Trump for his views on Muslims, Black protestors, Hispanic immigrants, and journalists.

The language in the ad, narrated by Air Force Colonel Tom Moe, is directly reminiscent of a quote by Martin Niemöller, a Protestant pastor who spoke out strongly against Hitler before being put in a concentration camp. During a few different lectures and speeches he gave a variation of this quote:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

During other speeches, Niemöller occasionally invoked other groups, including Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Communists. But regardless of which group was included, the message remained the same–if you stand by and watch as others are progressively subjected to human rights abuses, you are complicit.

It’s not a huge surprise that one of the toughest ads against Trump so far in the campaign season came from Kasich–those two have been spatting back and forth for a while. While I’m not sure anyone expected him to compare Trump to a Nazi, it’s also not entirely inconsistent with concerns posited by the more establishment side of the Republican Party. In fact, some have started to refer to Trump as “fascist.” Jeb Bush’s national security advisor John Noonan recently tweeted: “Forced federal registration of US citizens, based on religious identity, is fascism. Period. Nothing else to call it.” Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, whose own presidential campaign has been pretty dismal, said that Trump’s proposal to remove undocumented immigrants from from the U.S. amounted to “fascist talk.” Other advisors and political commenters have used the term “fascist” as well–Kasich’s ad just appears to be playing on those comments.

But it will be interesting to see if such a hard-hitting ad makes any dent in Trump’s poll numbers. Trump is currently at about 27.5 percent in the polls, while Kasich is hovering a little under 3 percent. So far, Trump’s lies, awfully offensive statements, and other seemingly major issues haven’t made a dent in his commanding lead–will Kasich’s ad finally do the trick?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Kasich’s New Ad Kind of Calls Donald Trump a Nazi appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and current Democratic Presidential frontrunner, took a day off from the campaign trail to testify in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. She testified for a grueling 11 hours about the security present at the embassy in Benghazi, Libya, the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and the controversy over the email accounts she used while at the State Department. As an inquiry that has been mired with controversy, both sides had something to prove with the hearing. Clinton had to prove that she could be a strong and ethical world leader; House Republicans had to prove that this wasn’t just a partisan witch hunt. While the 11-hour hearing was certainly grueling, for the most part Clinton came out on top–possibly in ways that will boost her seemingly tired campaign.

Clinton did exactly what she needed to do at the hearing yesterday–she appeared calm, collected, and a strong leader during the 11 hours of probing questions. Her testimony was littered with strong sound bytes. For example, Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) questioned her on why the Obama administration had originally attributed the attack on the embassy in Benghazi to an anti-Muslim video. Clinton explained that after the attack, what exactly had happened was unclear, and she did her best to update the American people as more information was obtained. After a back and forth, Clinton eventually responded: “I’m sorry that it doesn’t fit your narrative, congressman. I can only tell you what the facts were.” It’s a quotable moment that will make her sound strong and ethical when push comes to shove in this campaign.

The press has, by and large, declared her the clear winner. This even includes certain facets of conservative media. The Atlantic collected a number of conservative writers, pundits, and thinkers complimenting Clinton on her performance–although to be fair, some of those mentions condemn House Republicans more than they applaud Clinton.

Clinton is also reaping financial benefits from the hearing. After the much-lauded marathon performance yesterday, her donations have been increasing. Jennifer Palmieri, her director of Communications, stated that from 9 PM to 10 PM last night, Clinton’s campaign had the best hour of online donations yet. She stated that those donations appear attributable to the Benghazi hearing, stating: “My point isn’t ‘wow, we brought in a lot of money.’ The point is that it moved people.”

Clinton’s campaign has had a shockingly slow start in many ways, but she’s had a damn good couple weeks. She gave a strong performance in the first Democratic debate. Then, this week Vice President Joe Biden, who many thought was going to jump into the race, elected not to. Given that he probably would have siphoned off her supporters, this was good news for Clinton. She wrapped this week up with a strong performance in the Benghazi hearing. Clinton certainly isn’t guaranteed the nomination yet, as there’s still a lot of buzz about Senator Bernie Sanders. But if Clinton keeps moving the way she is now, Sanders may not be able to catch up.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Benghazi Hearing: Just the Latest Win for Hillary Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

Joe Biden announced in a press conference in the White House’s Rose Garden today that he won’t seek the presidency. Flanked by President Obama and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, he announced that the door has closed for him to mount a successful campaign for President.

He pointed out that he won’t just be a quiet spectator however–he plans on weighing in on various national conversations as they unfold in the Democratic primary and general election.

“Unfortunately, I believe we’re out of time.” @VP Joe Biden won’t run for president https://t.co/Z8PnoAJ2Hn pic.twitter.com/rXnNv8eOYS

— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) October 21, 2015

In his announcement, Biden spoke strongly about Obama’s legacy, of which he said he was proud to be a part, but also emphasized that he didn’t want anyone to back away from that legacy–clearly a shot at any Democrats who seek to distinguish themselves from Obama in a negative way.

Biden also highlighted many issues that the Democrats need to focus on moving forward. The bevy of issues he chose to highlight included a need to focus on helping the middle class, combatting the influx of money in politics, the need for affordable college education, upping the childcare tax credit, raising taxes on the very rich, accepting that we can’t be the world’s police, compromising with the Republican party, and seeking equality for different communities such as immigrants, women, minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ. He also spoke about an issue incredibly close to his heart–increasing funding for cancer and other medical research–a very understandable sentiment given the recent death of his son, Beau Biden, due to brain cancer.

Overall, the announcement focused more on Biden’s hopes and attempts to provide inspiration, rather than his choice not to join the race. He spoke of the central American belief of “possibilities,” and reaffirmed his focuses for the next 15 months he will remain in office.

This announcement comes as a huge surprise after political gossip earlier this week indicated that Biden was going to throw his hat into the ring. Top political reporters and news outlets, including Fox News’ Ed Henry who broke that story, reported that he’d be announcing his candidacy in the next couple days. Others, including freshman Congressman Brendan Boyle, echoed that sentiment. However, Biden’s decision not to run appears to be absolute.

The Democratic field will remain decidedly un-crowded, with the race appearing to boil down to frontrunner Hillary Clinton and her top challenger Bernie Sanders. While Biden may have a voice moving forward, he has spoken, and that word is final: he will not be running for President of the United States.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Just In: Joe Biden Won’t Be Joining the Presidential Race appeared first on Law Street.

From the Iran deal to ridiculous campaign pledges, there were a lot of tweets to talk about this week. Check out the slideshow below for the full roundup of important announcements, partisan bickering, and Donald Trump (you’ll have to wait until the end for the Donald). For more election Twitter coverage check out Law Street’s 2016 Voices.

Candidates Take their stand on the Iran deal:

When news that the deal was moving forward broke on Wednesday, many of the candidates had something to say.

Great news that the Iran Deal has enough votes; as POTUS, I would aggressively enforce it and counter Iran’s other malicious activities. -H — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 3, 2015

Partisan minority should not block bipartisan effort to stop bad deal that will fund mullahs, destabilize region, & pave Iran’s path to bomb — Jeb Bush (@JebBush) September 2, 2015

.@RandPaul on #IranDeal: “I think we’ve prematurely given the president a victory without announcing how badly he’s going to be defeated.” — Fox News (@FoxNews) September 2, 2015

The deal with Iran will go down as one of the most incompetent ever made. The U.S. lost on virtually every point. We just don’t win anymore! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2015

President Obama & John Kerry got rolled on the Iran deal. This is a terrible deal. https://t.co/akA7l7PCxd #Carly2016 (1/3) — Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina) September 3, 2015

We must stop this catastrophic #IranDeal: https://t.co/PRr9zuVaH2http://t.co/0Sls2lkMuR — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) August 31, 2015

What this president has done with this “Iran Deal” is the greatest betrayal of any president in our history of the security of our country. — Rick Santorum (@RickSantorum) September 3, 2015

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Campaign Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Last week at Law Street, our top stories included a look at the top 10 quotes from the first Republican presidential primary debate, Kim K’s latest legal troubles, and some familiar faces running for political office. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s top stories of the week.

#1 Top 10 Quotes from the First Presidential Debate

On Thursday night, the top ten Republican presidential candidates gathered in Cleveland, Ohio to duke it out on stage for the GOP nomination during the first primary debate of the year. Candidates were asked questions on a wide range of topics, from what they believe is the best approach to combat ISIL in the Middle East, to whether or not God has influenced their decisions to run for President. Read the full article here.

#2 Kim Kardashian’s Selfie Comes with an FDA Warning

Even though the world very well may be reaching its breaking point with how much Kardashian news coverage it can take, recent legal trouble between the family’s top breadwinner Kim Kardashian West and the Food and Drug Administration has warranted keeping the reality stars in the spotlight. Read the full article here.

#3 Celebrities Running for Office: Familiar Faces in the 2016 Races

Donald Trump is certainly dominating the news when it comes to the race for the 2016 Republican presidential primary. But “The Donald” didn’t get his start as a politician–he was a business mogul and reality television star before anyone ever saw him on a presidential poll. While that may seem weird to some, celebrities who have gotten famous through other means are consistently trying to join the political ranks. Here are five other celebrities running for office in 2016–and I’m betting they’re just the tip of the iceberg. Read the full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is certainly dominating the news when it comes to the race for the 2016 Republican presidential primary. But “The Donald” didn’t get his start as a politician–he was a business mogul and reality television star before anyone ever saw him on a presidential poll. While that may seem weird to some, celebrities who have gotten famous through other means are consistently trying to join the political ranks. Here are five other celebrities running for office in 2016–and I’m betting they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

Live From Capitol Hill…It’s Gary Kroeger!

Gary Kroeger, former ‘#SNL’ cast member, to run for #Iowa congressional seat http://t.co/9DeyxasPiz @JessicaChasmar pic.twitter.com/ho1n7tyZSa

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) April 9, 2015

Gary Kroeger made America laugh during his Saturday Night Live cast position from 1982-1985. Now, he’s running to try to represent the people of Iowa’s 1st Congressional District as a Democrat. He’s running on a platform that is heavy on economic issues and tax reform. He does have a tough road ahead of him though–first he’ll have to make it through a Democratic primary against two opponents.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Celebrities Running for Office: Familiar Faces in the 2016 Races appeared first on Law Street.

Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, self-described Democratic Socialist, is a 73-year-old senator from Vermont, the longest serving independent in Congressional history, and a Presidential candidate. He’s been described as “one of the few elected officials who is fundamentally devoted to dealing with the plight of poor and working people” and he’s gaining ground in the polls on the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders polled within 8 percentage points of Clinton in New Hampshire last week, a pretty big deal since the New Hampshire primary comes first in the series of nationwide party primary elections. From social justice and climate change to trade agreements and health care, Bernie’s got some all-inclusive views that I can definitely get on board with. Here are 10 reasons why you’ll want to #FeelTheBern in 2016.

1. #SocialistBern: Bernie wants to provide a free college education for everyone.

Rather than cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, Bernie wants to cut military spending and put that money towards education. That means that public colleges and universities in the country would be tuition-free.

 Say goodbye to college debt with #TheBern.

2. #ProgressiveBern: He wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Disposable income FTW.

3. #CivilRightsBern: He marched with MLK.

Bernie Sanders is one of two sitting senators to have attended the March on Washington in 1963 to hear MLK’s I Have A Dream Speech.

If only The Bern could still move like this…

4. #HappyBern: He’s never run a negative advertisement in over 30 years.

He has stated, “I’ve never run a negative political ad in my life…I believe in serious debates on serious issues.”

 He who hath not bitched on my TV hath mine vote.

5. #DemocracyBern: He wants to make Election Day a national holiday.

“In America, we should be celebrating our democracy and doing everything possible to make it easier for people to participate in the political process. Election Day should be a national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote. While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to create a more vibrant democracy.”

Get ready for your new favorite holiday.

6. #FlowerBern: Bernie loves the environment.

The Bern serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he’s focused on global warming. He introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies that immorally get huge tax breaks.

Peace, Love, and Bernie Sanders for President.

7. #PeacefulBern: He opposed entering the war in Iraq.

No further commentary needed.

8. #99PercentBern: He wants to reform the campaign finance system that allows “billionaires” to “buy elections and candidates.”

GOP better take its money and run.

9. #EqualityBern: He’s a feminist.

Bernie believes birth control should be provided through all health care plans. He’s also stated that all women who rely on the military healthcare system should have access to contraception coverage and family planning counseling.

Finally, a man who speaks to my uterus’s needs.

10. #TheRealBern: He released a folk album.

In 1987, as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, The Bern recorded a folk album.

He’s a cool Mayor.

Feel the Bern in 2016…

And move it like Bernie to the Democratic Primaries…

So we can #BernTheHouseDown.

Jennie Burger also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ten Reasons to #FeelTheBern This Election Season appeared first on Law Street.

As the Hispanic population in the United States rapidly grows, so does its influence on the electorate. As Hispanic voters turn out in greater numbers, both Republicans and Democrats are trying to appeal to these communities across the country. Even if Democrats tend to be more favored by Hispanic voters, Republicans still have a chance to change the odds. One thing is clear: the Hispanic vote will matter a great deal in 2016.

The Hispanic Population in the United States

Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority group in the United States. In 1990, the Hispanic population amounted to 22 million, or only nine percent of the total population. In 2000, there were 35 million Hispanics, while in 2010 their numbers reached 51 million, or 13 percent of the total population. On average, one million Hispanic people are added to the American population yearly. As of 2013, Hispanics in the United States numbered 54 million, or 17 percent of the total population. Recent projections estimate that by 2060 Hispanics will account for 31 percent of the total population.

The largest group of Hispanic people is found in New Mexico (47.3 percent), followed by California with 14.4 million. They are also heavily represented in Texas (10 million) and Florida (4.5 million). In addition, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York all have more than one million Hispanic residents.

Hispanic Voter Turnout

The phrase “Hispanic vote” or “Latino vote” is often used by the media and politicians in reference to this specific electorate and its ability to alter election outcomes. According to recent voting trends, Hispanics constitute a significant bloc of American voters, and their numbers are likely to grow. In 2010, seven percent of all voters in federal elections were of Hispanic origin, but by 2012 they numbered 8.4 percent.

However, Hispanic Americans are less likely to be registered to vote than white or black Americans. According to 2013 data from Gallup, only 51 percent of all eligible Hispanic residents were registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. At the same time, 85 percent of white voters, 60 percent of Asian voters, and 81 percent of black voters were registered. Similar numbers held for the 2014 midterm elections: 25.2 million Hispanics were eligible to vote, but the number of Hispanic voters was even lower than the already low nationwide turnout of 37 percent.

Even if not all eligible Hispanics are actually voting, they do boost the overall minority vote. Thus, recent ethnic dynamics of the American electorate suggest that a collective ethnic minorities’ voting preferences can alter the outcome of future presidential elections, especially when taking into account the declining numbers of white voters. During the 2012 federal elections, President Obama managed to win with only 39 percent of white electorate support, while Romney lost despite carrying 59 percent of white voters.

Statewide, eligible Hispanic voters amount to around 40.1 percent in New Mexico, 27.4 percent in Texas, 26.9 percent in California, 20.3 percent in Arizona, 17.1 percent in Florida, 15.9 percent in Nevada, 13.2 percent in New York, 12.8 percent in New Jersey, and 10.3 percent in Connecticut. Again, Hispanic voter turnout during the midterms was lower than that of other ethnic groups and nationwide. For example, in Florida, only 36.5 percent of Hispanic voters showed up to vote in the 2014 midterm elections, while the overall voter turnout was at 50.5 percent. Despite low turnout, however, Hispanic voters have the ability to strongly affect American elections.

Why is Hispanic turnout so low?

There’s no one answer to that question, but there are some important factors to keep in mind. The low voter registration numbers among Hispanics can be in part explained by the fact that many Hispanics are not American-born citizens. Only six out of ten Hispanic voters (35.6 percent) were born in the United States, but 75 percent of American-born Hispanics registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. In contrast, those born in other nations registered at a much lower rate of 31 percent. Some Hispanics are ineligible to vote because of their immigration statuses. Hispanics who are permanent residents, but not citizens, are allowed to vote in some local and state elections, but are prohibited from participating in federal elections. Candidates for office are also sometimes blamed for low participation rates as they may not offer comprehensive platforms that include issues important to minority voters.

Party Lines

Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats rather than Republicans. In 2000 and 2002 Democrats garnered the votes of 60 percent of Hispanic voters, while Republicans earned only 35 percent and 37 percent respectively. In 2004, 44 percent of Hispanics voted for Republicans and 53 percent supported the Democratic Party. In 2006, more Hispanics than ever chose Democrats, at 69 percent, over Republicans at 30 percent. During the next two federal elections in 2008 and 2010, Hispanic voters supported Democrats slightly less, but still by commanding margins.

According to 2013 Gallup data, 58 percent of Hispanics who had registered to vote were Democrats, 26 percent were Republicans, and 13 percent were independents. In addition, 41 percent of unregistered Hispanics identified as Democrats, and only 17 percent identified Republicans.

While the majority of Hispanics are either Democrats or Independents, Republicans have recently gained a considerable share of Hispanic votes in gubernatorial elections. For example, during the midterm elections in Texas and Georgia, Republicans captured 40 percent of Latino voters. 

Hispanic Voters in Swing States

Historically, certain states in the U.S. have always voted for either Democrats or Republicans, while there are states that swing back and forth between the two parties–“swing states.” Presidential candidates often campaign more in those states, as they will decide elections. In the 2016 elections, many states with large Hispanic populations are already being viewed as the states to win, including Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.

Florida has the largest Hispanic population among the swing states, at more than four million. During the 2012 elections, the Hispanic electorate accounted for 17 percent of total voters. As Florida has a large population of Cubans who historically favor Republicans, the GOP has traditionally made a strong run in Florida. But recently, more Hispanics in Florida have been leaning toward the Democratic Party.

Colorado has the second largest Hispanic population among swing states, at a little over a million. Historically, Colorado has been overwhelmingly Republican, but recent demographic trends have changed the odds for the GOP. During the last two presidential elections, Hispanic constituencies overwhelmingly backed Obama over McCain and Romney, helping him to victory.

The voting situation in Nevada is also uncertain, as both Bush and Obama won the state twice. Obama won Nevada largely due to Hispanic voters who made up 14 percent of the total electorate. However, Obama didn’t do so well with white voters in Nevada, leaving significant chances for the Republican party to capture more non-Hispanic votes in this state.

Traditionally red state Texas may also turn into a swing  state. Thirty percent of its eligible voters are Hispanic; as a result experts believe that the Hispanic vote can make a difference in Texas in 2016.

Even though the Hispanic populations in the swing states are likely to vote for Democrats, many non-Hispanic whites in those states are still overwhelmingly Republican, making it possible for the GOP to win through capturing more white votes. That means that Hispanic voters can play a pivotal role in the final voting decision, but won’t necessarily be the deciding factor anywhere. 

Why do Hispanic voters prefer Democrats over Republicans?

While obviously not all Hispanics feel the same way about any given issue, there are certain stand-out issues that tend to draw many Hispanic voters to Democratic candidates. Hispanic voters’ views on major issues such as immigration reform, health care, criminal justice, the economy, and education tend to line up more closely with Democratic platforms.

For one, the traditional Republican stance on immigration is a big reason why they are less popular in Hispanic communities than Democrats, who tend to be more in support of comprehensive reform in this sphere. The 2014 National Survey of Latinos revealed that 66 percent of registered Hispanic voters considered comprehensive immigration legislation an urgent and very important matter. Often Republican-sponsored laws concerning immigration, such as Proposition 187 in California, don’t resonate well in Hispanic communities. Proposition 187, which allowed law enforcement to turn in undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities, is sometimes viewed as the end of the Red California, as the ensuing controversy led to many Democratic victories.

However, according to the 2014 National Survey of Latinos, 54 percent of registered Hispanic voters said that a candidate’s position on immigration is not the only factor in their voting decision. The economy and job creation were viewed as more important than other issues, including immigration and health care.

How will Hispanic voters affect the 2016 elections?

By some estimations, Republicans need to capture 30-40 percent of Hispanic voters in order to win the Presidential election. In order for Republicans to win the necessary Hispanic votes, their candidate must engage with Hispanic communities. Watch the video below to learn more about Hispanic voters and what many are looking for in 2016 presidential candidates.

Conclusion

It’s clear that both parties should seriously consider the Hispanic electorate during their 2016 campaigns. While there’s a lot of diversity within the American Hispanic population itself, there are certain issues that have stood as consistent concerns for many Hispanic voters. In any scenario, capturing the majority of Hispanic voters will be essential for both parties in 2016 and beyond. 

Resources

Primary

Gallup: In U.S., Voter Registration Lags Among Hispanics and Asians

Latino Decisions: Mi Familia Vota Poll on Executive Action – Nov 2014

Pew Research Center: In 2014, Latinos Will Surpass Whites as Largest Racial/Ethnic Group in California

Pew Research Center: Mapping the Latino Electorate by State

Pew Research Center: Five Takeaways About the 2014 Latino Vote

Additional 

Albuquerque Journal: Low Hispanic Voter Turnout Partly Fault of Candidates

Fox News Latino: GOP needs 40 Percent of Latino Votes to Win White House in 2016

Infoplease: Hispanic Americans by the Numbers

NBC News: Want Latino Votes? Think Ground Game and Messaging

International Business Times: Ted Cruz 2016: Why Hispanic Voters Might Not be Thrilled if Texas Senator Becomes First Latino President

International Business Times: Obama Immigration Orders Could Drive Latino Vote in Battleground States For 2016

Huffington Post: Latino Views on the 2016 GOP Field: Who Can Actually Win the Latino Vote?

Hispanic Voters 2012: Hispanics in America

MSNBC: Latino Voters Likely to Back Hillary in 2016

San Antonio Express News: New Books Dissect the Budding Latino Voter Boom

Washington Post: Handicapping the Hispanic Vote for 2016 

Washington Post: Did the GOP Make Inroads With the Latino Vote?

The New York Times: Hispanic Voters Are Important For Republicans, But Not Indispensable

Texas Monthly: Will Texas be a Swing State by 2016?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Part Will Hispanic Voters Play in the 2016 Elections? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. For weeks, any other legitimate potential Democratic challengers have been backing away very quickly from a nomination consideration. Honestly, with the way this race is probably going to go we might as well just have the convention right now, because Hills is definitely sitting pretty.

So now we turn our eyes to the much more interesting and significantly less important race on the Democratic side–who will be Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee?

Given that everyone is still freaking out over her announcement, it’s probably best to let the dust settle before coming up with any concrete answer. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun speculating in the meantime.

Speculation about who Clinton may pick includes a lot of mid-to-high-level players in the Democratic Party. Both sitting Virginia senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, might be legitimate choices, as they are from a crucial swing state. Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, and long considered a potential contender to fight Clinton for the nomination, could also make a strong partner.

Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, could also be a tempting second in command. While Texas isn’t purple yet, it may be relatively soon, and capitalizing on that in advance could be a smart overall strategy for the Democratic Party. Castro is Hispanic, a voting bloc that has become a priority to win for both the Democrat and Republican tickets. Furthermore, Castro is 40 years old–30 years Clinton’s junior. In addition to balancing out her perspective, Castro will look young and virile standing next to Clinton, and assuage those who have concerns about her health.

There are also questions over whether Clinton would only limit the search to men. There are a lot of female rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Elizabeth Warren, the popular senator from Massachusetts. She has said she’s not planning on running, despite the fact that she’d presumably have quite a bit of grassroots support if she chose to. More liberal than Clinton in many ways, including on financial issues and ties to Wall Street, she could energize young liberals who are still hurting from the 2008 recession.

Also from the ranks of Democratic women there’s been talk of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N). That one seems like a long shot though, despite the fact that Gillibrand took over Clinton’s seat when she vacated it to become Secretary of State. She’s gone after some big, important issues in her time in the Senate, such as sexual assault in the military; however, in addition to the fact that Clinton and Gillibrand are seen as somewhat similar, there are concerns over whether a ticket with two people from the same state could even work. The 12th Amendment effectively prohibits that both the President and Vice President be from the same state, but exactly what that means is somewhat difficult to parse out. Clinton and Gillibrand both served as Senators from New York, but does that make them “from” the same state? That would be an issue that would have to be decided, but the idea that she chooses Gillibrand is unlikely to begin with. It could however, impact any other possible VPs from New York, including Governor Andrew Cuomo.

There are plenty of other names for consideration on this list. There’s also Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She was an attorney with a strong record on crime and safety before being elected to the Senate. Senator Cory Booker is another rising star, particularly after his much-respected time as mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick has been brought up, and even though he says he’s not interested, that was over a year ago, and he may change his mind.

No matter who Clinton picks, she’s got a solid list from which to choose. As the Republican Party contenders spend the next few months tearing each other down, she’s got time to groom a running mate and solidify her base.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary’s In, But Who Will She Run With? appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.