Legal Battles over the Mirena IUD: What’s Next?

Image courtesy of Daniel Lobo; License: (CC BY 2.0)

In 2011, a personal injury complaint was filed in regards to Mirena, an intrauterine device (IUD) manufactured by Bayer Healthcare, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies worldwide. Since then, over a thousand lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturers of Mirena. Some Mirena users have suffered from uterine perforation, inflammation, organ damage, and a host of other medical complications. The Mirena IUD is Bayer’s most popular model worldwide, and the company markets the product as safe and efficient. Yet as the number of lawsuits continues to rise, Mirena’s reputation may take a hit. Read the full issue brief 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: Top 10 Issue Briefs of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

It has become a common sentiment–2016 was awful. One frequent complaint: a bunch of celebrity deaths. It even felt bizarre at points–just how many legendary music stars and acting icons was the Grim Reaper going to take away from us at a time when we need them the most? Think about it: David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Leonard Cohen, Prince, Muhammad Ali, and Gene Wilder all passed away this year.

“Harambe died, America died, Prince and other famous people died.”—Description of 2016 by my 11-year-old, who should be president.

— Ken Layne (@KenLayne) December 2, 2016

So did a lot more celebrities die this year? Or did it just feel that way? The BBC actually looked into that question. It sent its obituaries editor Nick Serpell to check whether there was an abnormal number of stars who died this year.

Serpell analyzed how many pre-prepared obituaries the BBC aired or posted over its TV, radio, and website outlets, from the years 2012-2016. And, interestingly enough, there was huge increase in star deaths in just the first three months of 2016—with twice as many notable deaths compared to the same months in 2015, and five times as many when compared to 2012.

No, It’s NOT Our Imagination. More Famous People HAVE Died in 2016. https://t.co/B5nF6ho3nF pic.twitter.com/alywiBcdtv

— Alan Cross (@alancross) December 16, 2016

Bear in mind though that this is not a completely reliable number to weigh. The BBC doesn’t run an obituary for every single celebrity who dies, and it was only the pre-prepared ones that were measured.

According to Serpell, the spike in celebrity deaths was early and didn’t last. “The last six months of this year were broadly in line with the previous last six months of the previous four or five years,” he said. But, there was an overall increase of 30 percent, which is still noteworthy. “In 2012, we had a total of 16. In 2013, it went to 24. In 2014, it rose again to 29. In 2015, it rose slightly again to 32. For 2016, as of [December 15], it stands at 42,” he said.

I wanna take a moment to remind you how many famous people died (so far) in 2016.

If everyone could stop dying – that’d be great. Thanks. pic.twitter.com/stgjqGepPi

— Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) November 25, 2016

So, maybe it felt like there was a spike in deaths this year since there were a lot of big names who died, leaving a seemingly large vacuum.  And as Serpell points out, that actually makes a lot of sense. The golden days of the 1960s–when pop culture and TV really exploded–were roughly half a century ago. People who became stars became huge stars. But today, there’s significantly more diversity, so a lot of stars are less universally recognized.

It’s also important to note that the death rate is up generally, because of the enormity of the baby-boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1964. In the U.S., there were about 76 million baby-boomers in 2014–about 23 percent of the U.S. population. These people are now between 52 and 70 years old. That means we may see more celebrity obituaries soon, so get ready and brace yourselves for 2017.

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 Is it Just Us, or Were There a Lot of Celebrity Deaths in 2016? appeared first on Law Street.

The Oxford Dictionaries declared “post-truth” the word of the year after Brexit and the U.S. election led to a surge in the use of the term. Both the Brexit and Trump campaigns were defined by appealing to people’s emotions rather than logic, statistics, or facts. Oxford Dictionaries defines the word as, “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

The word has been around since at least 1992, but with all of the political drama in the past year, its use has increased by 2,000 percent. “We first saw the frequency really spike this year in June with buzz over the Brexit vote and again in July when Donald Trump secured the Republican presidential nomination,” said Casper Grathwohl, president of Oxford Dictionaries. He said that use of the word spread as fast and wide as it did thanks to social media, and a growing distrust of facts offered by politicians and media. “Given that usage of the term hasn’t shown any signs of slowing down, I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘post-truth’ becomes one of the defining words of our time,” Grathwohl said.

If you wonder how to use the word it would be something like this.

Made the mistake of reading a #DailyTelegraph today. #PostTruth definitely sums up the misinformation they print as “news”.

— Angry Old EcoWarrior (@qw92p) November 16, 2016

Nevermind #PostTruth we’re living in a #postlogical #postpolitical & #postcritical world governed by too much opinion & not enough analysis

— George Vasey (@GeorgeVasey) November 16, 2016

Obama founded ISIS. George Bush was behind 9/11. Welcome to post-truth politics https://t.co/QYrx76krF0

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) November 1, 2016

The word “post-truth” is strongly associated with politics, and often communicated via social media, where many people get their news. “I think it reflects a trend of how emotion and individual reactions are becoming more and more important. People are restricting their news consumption to sources that don’t claim to be neutral,” said Charlotte Buxton, an editor at Oxford Dictionaries.

Facebook and Google have been in hot water recently for spreading fake news stories. Many people swallow the bait and actually believe them. Notable examples of this include reports that Denzel Washington praised Donald Trump (he didn’t) or that Trump won the popular vote (he didn’t).

Popular words can symbolize the spirit of the time and can be trendy and vanish fast, but some stick around and become part of a modernized language. “When you look back at the dictionary, you get some words that are a spasm of history and they very quickly fall out of use,” linguist Dr. Claire Hardaker told BBC. “Others live on and become part of our language. But it is very unpredictable.”

Other words that made the short list for word of the year include “Brexiteer,” which defines a person who voted for Brexit; “adulting,” which describes the practice of behaving as a responsible adult; and “coulrophobia,” an extreme or irrational fear of clowns and yet another word that would capture the spirit of 2016. The Oxford Dictionaries word of the year last year was a picture for the first time ever–more specifically, it was the emoji used to indicate laughing so hard that you cry. This year, “post-truth” seems to be more reflective of the public mood.

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 Oxford Dictionaries Makes ‘Post-Truth’ the Word of the Year appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump and Vice Presidential nominee Mike Pence won the 2016 election last night.

Here are the fast facts:

Trump won 279 electoral votes, 9 over the threshold of 270.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Donald Trump won the electoral map.

Republicans retained control of the U.S. Senate, with 51 Senators. They also retained control of the House, with 236 Representatives.

Here’s a look at the current electoral map https://t.co/ga9QMGfB2l #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/JSbdnwuTQY

— Bloomberg (@business) November 9, 2016

For continued election coverage, stay tuned with Law Street Media, as we break down the ballot measures that passed and failed, and news in the coming weeks of transition.

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 Donald Trump Wins the 2016 Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

During a stop in Charlotte, North Carolina last week, presidential candidate Donald Trump laid out his plans to a predominantly white crowd, for what he is calling a “new deal for black America.”

His platform calls for better education, an increased police presence, proposed designation of “blighted communities” with a “disaster designation” to spark change and rebuild these communities with an emphasis on bringing back businesses.

Trump has said previously that black communities are at their worst in history, a comment that didn’t sit well with many people of color. At this rally he echoed those concerns, describing the cities as places where “you walk to the store to buy a loaf of bread, maybe with your child, and you get shot, your child gets shot,” but discussing it in a way that lumps all African Americans into one group.

He also prefaced his discussion on inner cities and African Americans by saying that “we’re going to work on our ghettos.”

Help me out there. Did Trump just say “we’re going to work on our ghettos” before mentioning inner cities, violence and African Americans? pic.twitter.com/v9KqZSLbh6

— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) October 27, 2016

Some of his new proposals included tax holidays used to help cities, arguing for foreign companies to invest in these blighted communities, and bringing in direct funding to urban areas.

While discussing the need for more police patrolling the streets, Trump said that the problem is a lack of police for African American communities rather than too many police, connecting the former to a increase in murder rate in cities.

“Whether you vote for me or not, I will be your greatest champion,” Trump said. “We live in a very divided country, and I will be your greatest champion.”

Additionally, he blamed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for starting a “war on police,” but did not discuss the other side, police brutality, an issue that carries importance for black voters.

After 70yrs of ignoring our struggle, Trump’s got a “new deal” for African Americans?
Hmm.Let’s examine some old deals he/GOP have shared pic.twitter.com/E2YYJ5rvkw

— T. Fisher King (@T_FisherKing) October 27, 2016

In a recent CNN/ORC poll, Trump has attracted just 20 percent of the nonwhite vote. According to Gallup, in the 2012 election, Barack Obama garnered 95 percent of the black vote.

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 Trump Unveils “New Deal for Black America” appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, and Sam Reilly.

Click here to see the all of Law Street’s 2016 Law School Specialty Rankings

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

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 Top Schools for Tax Law Programs 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Hours before the opening ceremony of the Olympic games in Rio, the International Olympics Committee announced that 271 Russian athletes were cleared to compete after a doping scandal disqualified nearly one-third of the country’s team.

The committee denied 118 athletes that Russia hoped to send after a report from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) last year revealed some of the team members’ involvement in a government-sanctioned doping system.

Russia’s depleted Olympic team heads for Rio De Janeiro amid doping scandal. https://t.co/dEOrdJFFLH pic.twitter.com/W6lWHa2YoZ

— ABC News (@ABC) July 28, 2016

271 may sound like a lot, but the Russian Federation sent 436 athletes to the London Games in 2012, and those lucky 271 make up only about 70 percent of the 389 athletes the country hoped to send.

For many Russians, this is a preferable alternative to a blanket ban on the whole team, but Russia isn’t completely in the clear. The scandal has raised doubts about Russia’s integrity and WADA found Russian athletics to have a “deeply rooted culture of cheating at all levels.”

Integrity of Olympics in tatters as two-thirds of Russians given all-clear to compete: https://t.co/Hit2s1zPou@Rio2016_en

— Ben Rumsby (@ben_rumsby) August 4, 2016

You can find a list of which Russian athletes are and are not allowed to compete in Rio here.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 271 Russian Athletes Cleared for Rio appeared first on Law Street.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has all the qualities of your favorite grandma: 83 years old, looks great in glasses, makes borderline inappropriate political comments.

The Supreme Court justice came under intense scrutiny this week after publicly criticizing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump not once, not twice, but three times, calling him a faker, inconsistent, and chastising him for his ego, all while reaching for her passport so she could move to another country pending his inauguration.

Trump did not take it well.

Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot – resign!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2016

RBG isn’t the first to let her doubts about Trump bleed out into newsfeeds, but this is different from the typical political figure because as a SCOTUS justice, she is, by definition, supposed to avoid being political. Despite common knowledge of Ginsburg’s liberal tendencies, her position as a justice calls for objectivity and removal from the political sphere when making court decisions, and many think she may have crossed the line.

Even the @NYTimes and @WashingtonPost Editorial Boards condemned Justice Ginsburg for her ethical and legal breach. What was she thinking?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2016

Her comments led to a huge debate by legal ethicists and judges nationwide and there is a legitimate fear of a Bush v. Gore sequel, in which Ginsburg would have to recuse herself because she has demonstrated a clear bias against one of the parties.

But on Thursday, RBG did take a couple steps back from the fight. She said in a statement,

On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them…Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.

Still, it seems like these two won’t be fast friends if he does make it to the White House.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Recuse Me, What Did You Say?: RBG and Donald Trump Go Head-to-Head appeared first on Law Street.

When you’re making a crossword puzzle, it’s very easy to create a difficult puzzle with next-to-impossible clues. It is also incredibly difficult to make a crossword puzzle that is easy to solve, fitting only common words into the grid. Conspiracy theories work pretty much the same way–with a lot of careful effort, you can create a theory that just might be easy to swallow. It sounds totally crazy but maybe, just maybe there actually was a second shooter behind the grassy knoll. It would be completely bananas, but it’s possible that the NBA rigged the championship because of a blood-oath with LeBron. These are conspiracies, but there’s enough fact surrounding them to give them the veneer of truth.

Since politics can get boring, let’s take a break from all the facts and figures for a moment and have some fun crafting our own conspiracy theory. But what type to choose?

When it comes to current-day political conspiracies, no theory is more widespread or worse-explained than the Illuminati. In case you’ve been living under a rock, or have been brainwashed into sheeple by the mainstream media, the Illuminati were essentially members of a really nerdy book club in the 1770s that lasted for about ten years before being shut down. To conspiracy theorists, the Illuminati is still alive, and its members are pulling all of the world’s strings behind closed doors. They’re meeting in person in top-secret locales and exercising unimaginable influence over world leaders. They also leave fun hints and clues for us to find, because apparently they prefer fun I-Spy games more than actually staying secret.

Actual footage from the moon landing, cut from broadcast for suspicious reasons.

So what does this have to do with the 2016 Presidential Election? I’d tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.

Only joking. You might have seen thumbnails in your recommended videos section on YouTube featuring Hillary Clinton dressed in demonic fashion, or perhaps George W. Bush surrounded by pyramids, and wondered where they come from. Essentially, Americans who are frustrated with our political system, or likely confused by it, concoct clandestine backdoor reasons for every major event in history, claiming that it is all part of a grand scheme for “New World Order.” That’s basically a spooky way of saying a world government designed to oppress all people.

Why should we let the crackpots have all the fun? Here’s a step-by-step guide to creating your own conspiracy, and getting one step closer to the “ultimate truth.”

1. Pick an event you didn’t like.

Feel free to choose something like a famous atrocity, or something like alleged voting discrepancies from North Dakota’s democratic caucus. Explain that the explanation the general public has been fed is not only untrue, but supported by false-flag evidence planted by someone important, like the Koch brothers, or Oprah.

2. Diagnose the real cause

Clearly the BP oil spill and Vince Foster‘s death were both decided in a boardroom by old men in suits. There’s an underlying reason for every random, senseless event, and it’s usually a stepping stone to the ultimate plan.

3. Tie it back to a easily vilified celebrity figure

Either go for the typical “Kenyan Muslim President” route, or think of something more interesting. If you need inspiration, I still trust this conspiracy site I found–I know the source is from 2 years ago–that says Clinton is “a 6th level Illuminati witch & sadistic Monarch slave handler.”

A rare glimpse into the bunker below the White House where the real meetings happen.

So why do people believe in these theories? Illuminati conspiracy theorists are typically people who find it frustrating to believe that either hard work or luck is good enough to propel someone to powerful positions. They take comfort in the idea that there is no hope changing the status quo unless you’ve been pre-selected by the chosen few. Plus, by virtue of “knowing the truth,” you’re smarter than all of your friends.

The most disappointing part of conspiracy theories like this is that it looks remarkable similar to the real non-conspiracy world we live in now. The idea that a select few meet to discuss powerful changes to the world is already true, and it happens all the time. Of course Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Xi Jinping control what happens around the world–that’s their job! Hillary Clinton is smart enough to orchestrate secret society cover-ups and rig an entire election, but apparently not smart enough to become as powerful and influential as she currently is by virtue of her own actions.

“Silly Season” is meant to only last a few weeks during the primaries, but given the tone of the 2016 General Election so far, silly season has been extended indefinitely. Why not amp up the chaos a bit more, and introduce some really crazy ideas? It’s not enough to say Trump might be a plant by the Clinton family to ensure a Democratic victory–make sure it’s part of a world-wide conspiracy as well.

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 Anatomy of An Illuminati Political Conspiracy appeared first on Law Street.

If my Facebook newsfeed is anything to go off of, people my age hate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I’ll see videos with titles like “HILLARY EXPOSED,” “$HILLARY STEALS THE ELECTION,” and “WHO SAID IT, TRUMP OR HITLER?” shared thousands of times, most of which are accompanied by the little angry-face reaction emoji. But, of course, that’s not representative of the general public right? If you’re friends with people who share your political views, the internet is a room full of people who applaud everything you say and hate your enemies. If you’re visiting websites like Reddit or the Huffington Post, you’re going to have a much different comments-section experience than at Breitbart or The National Review. You can’t get a fair take on who likes whom on the internet, so to escape the thought-bubbles of social media, I turned to polling to answer the question: What does America really think of our presumptive nominees?

Favorability is measured in a shockingly simple way–surveys ask Americans how they view a candidate, and provide options from “very favorable” to “very unfavorable.” The data suggest that all the online negativity comes from a real place. Even though Hillary Clinton has received more votes in the primary than any other candidate, her average favorability is 38.4 percent. Donald Trump also has a really bad favorability rating, sitting 10 points below Clinton – at 28.4 percent. Pathetic–sad!

Trump and Clinton have a similar problem–if you don’t like one of them, chances are you really hate them. Trump’s fanbase is larger than anyone predicted, and stark-raving mad dedicated to his cause. His detractors are even more numerous, and just as incensed by what he says and does. Clinton’s campaign is a savvy political juggernaut, and her careful planning has all-but secured the Democratic nominee. Despite her success, over forty percent of voters have a strongly negative view of her.

How do these candidates that Americans don’t like continue winning?  Voters might not be in love with Hillary Clinton, but they’re voting for her as the lesser of two evils. If you only see Clinton and Trump being viable options for the presidency, the decision is made very simple for most voters. It’s also important not to be too cynical–nearly half of voters see Clinton and Trump as favorable (although very different halves, I imagine.) It’s not that everyone hates the almost-nominees, just that they are extremely divisive in the American public.

We’re in a tough position now, as most Americans find themselves rooting for the candidate they hate the least–a far cry from the Obama ’08 enthusiasm that energized the Democratic party just two elections ago. An election as important as this one shouldn’t be treated so dispassionately by voters, because a low turn-out could tilt the election the way you’re actually afraid of. An old adage fits well here: If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.

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 How Do Candidates America Hates Keep Winning? appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump recently told his supporters that “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote. The only thing she’s got going is the woman card.” Twitter users balked at the multiple levels of stupid and offensive tucked inside his statement; namely that it is somehow easier for women to run for public office than men, or that Hillary’s gender is her leading (or only) accomplishment. Men and women alike turned their trigger fingers into Twitter fingers to rebuke Trump’s sexist comments. Check out some of the best tweets below:

The Loyalty Card

I wish my #womancard gave me discounts on shoes and tampons instead of being a discount card for same work pay.

— Heather Wilson-Smith (@GoddessesUnite) April 27, 2016

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 Twitter Shows Trump the Real “Woman Card” appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is winning, winning, winning. He’s winning so much, he’s probably getting bored of winning. He’s enjoying a 286-delegate lead over Cruz, and with the April 26 Republican primaries poised to be a sweep for Mr. Trump, his rocket-fueled journey to the magic number of 1,237 delegates has struck fear in the hearts of his rivals. How in the world is this happening?

When you consider that each of Trump’s opponents has a weakness with the GOP base, you start to see how the rabid fanaticism of “Trumpeters” could outnumber the “Cruz-ers” and the “Kasich-ettes.” Cruz is too zealous for many non-evangelical voters, as evidenced by his paltry third place finish in New York’s Republican primary. The opposite is true for Kasich, as his more moderate brand of conservatism appeals to Ohioans, and pretty much nobody else.

Kasich is so far behind in the delegate count, even a miracle couldn’t earn him the necessary majority of delegates. And if Cruz can’t consistently and thoroughly beat Trump, it will be impossible for him to get his majority. That is a recipe for a Trump nomination, which is why Cruz and Kasich’s camps met in what I assume is a secret underground GOP lair to develop a game plan. Much like when Loki coordinated with that robot alien race in “The Avengers,” they figured their powers combined might be what it will take for primary domination.

Here’s how the game plan will work: Kasich will essentially skip the Indiana Primary, conceding all efforts to Ted Cruz. Considering that polls have Kasich’s support at around 22 points, and Cruz and Trump are close at 35 and 41 points respectively, if Kasich’s voters jump ship to Cruz, he could topple Trump. Indiana’s 57 delegates are “winner-takes-all,” so a Trump victory could sound very final. In return for this, Cruz will pass on Oregon and New Mexico, allowing Kasich to be a monolithic Trump-opposer. This interactive graph allows you to change the margins of future primary results in the GOP race, showing how a loss in any one state could prevent Trump from reaching 1,237 delegates.

There are a few drawbacks to this plan–firstly, that it might not work. Kasich’s name is still on the Indiana ballot, and he has yet to formally address his supporters and instruct them to vote for Cruz. So far, the agreement just states that he won’t campaign in Indiana. There’s also no guarantee that Kasich’s voters will want to vote for Cruz, even if they don’t support Trump.

The move also plays right into Donald Trump’s narrative of persecution. “The establishment is out to get me” sounds a lot more convincing when the establishment is actually, actively plotting to take you down in a kamikaze blaze. Nothing will stir his fan base more than actual proof that the system is indeed rigged.

The most terrifying part of this plan is that it’s a strategy designed to cause chaos. Their best hope is to create a contested convention, and it’s likely that Trump would still have the most votes among the three candidates. If Cruz or Kasich wrests the nomination from Trump’s tiny hands, all hell could break loose, including temper tantrums and riots. Say what you will about the candidates’ positions, but this has been the best season of America’s Next Top Candidate yet.

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 Mutually-Assured Obstruction: Cruz, Kasich Aim for Contested Convention appeared first on Law Street.

Bad Lip Reading features one of the simplest yet most entertaining concepts on the internet. A Youtube channel run by an anonymous creator, it takes videos of celebrities, politicians, and movie trailers and dubs in ridiculous things for the speakers to say. Bad Lip Reading has long been spoofing this year’s crazy cast of presidential candidates, but its rendition of Bernie Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s last debate in New York is one of the best yet. Check it out below:

One of the highlights is when Bad Lip Reading graduates from just dubbing in silly things for Sanders and Clinton to say, and moves on to spoofing Sanders’ hand motions as well, by having him play a game of charades called “Time to Act.” Prompts included “you ask the waiter for the check” “you see a bee” “prostate exam” “timid Napoleon” and “your hand is a baby bird, your fingers are the beak.”

In the spot, which features more Sanders than Clinton (perhaps because of his more characteristic charisma and hand gestures) the Vermont Senator also takes a break from the debate to sing a quick song, “Why is it creepy to juggle in bed? When God gave us hands, and God gave us balls, and God gave us beds?”

Bad Lip Reading has certainly been having plenty of fun this election cycle, like with this interpretation of Republican hopeful Ted Cruz’s words:

Or this nonsensical version of the first Republican debate back in the summer of 2015:

As the primary contests yield nominees who will inevitably face off many times  before the general election, Bad Lip Reading will probably have even more fantastic fodder. I, for one, can’t wait.

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 Bad Lip Reading Takes on Latest Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new celebrity feud, and it’s more fiery than Amber Rose, Azealia Banks, Meek Mill, and Iggy Azalea combined. That’s right, the drama queens involved in a serious beef right now are…Tim Robbins and the former First Lady of Guam? Yes, you read that right.

What set off the political powder keg? Tim Robbins, an actor and Bernie Sanders supporter, argued that Hillary Clinton’s primary win in South Carolina was about as significant as winning Guam. South Carolinians haven’t taken too kindly to his comment, arguing that their votes matter as much as any others.

@Americaputz @TimRobbins1 His point was literally that the South doesn’t and shouldn’t matter. I don’t see his interpretation.

— Alex Katz (@Alex__Katz) April 4, 2016

Dismissing the primary votes of South Carolinians isn’t very kind, but this comment cuts especially deep for the disenfranchised voters of Guam. Because Guam is a territory of the United States, its citizens can vote in the primary, but are not permitted to vote in the general election. They can and do serve in the military, but aren’t able to vote in November. Guam has no votes in the electoral college–and while they’ll often conduct a straw poll, it has no real effect on the general election. This means that their primary votes are their only chance to voice an opinion about who should govern them for the next four years.

Guam’s twelve Democratic delegates and nine Republican delegates aren’t huge counts, but they still count toward the majority each nominee will need. In a race with the potential to be extremely close, no one should sneer at collecting a dozen delegates. Further, it’s short-sighted to claim that Clinton’s 39-delegate take from South Carolina doesn’t matter–Sanders only has three wins with more than 39 delegates, making Clinton’s large wins serious stumbling blocks.

Madeleine Bordallo isn’t just Guam’s former First Lady; she’s also the territory’s only Congressional delegate. Defending her home, she stated, “I am deeply disappointed by remarks made today by Tim Robbins at a campaign rally for Sen. Bernie Sanders that used the inability of the people of Guam to vote for president as a political punch line.”

Robbins responded to Delegate Madeleine Bordallo with a tweet:

No disrespect to voters of SC or Guam. Was making a point about MSM anointing HRC after SC primary. No surprise ABC took it out of context.

— Tim Robbins (@TimRobbins1) April 4, 2016

For those without a pocket political-Twitter-to-English dictionary, MSM is “mainstream media.” In his semi-apology, Robbins attempts to make amends with angered southerners and incensed Guamanians. Although he is trying his best to get out of his comment, this may prove harder to escape than the Shawshank State Penitentiary.

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 Tim Robbins And The First Lady of Guam Are In a Tizzy appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 Summer Olympics will be hosted in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, and it seems like hardly anyone is excited about them. The trouble is, those seats might be pretty empty. Only half of the tickets have been sold–and demand is so low that Brazil might be buying its own tickets (the government is considering purchasing tickets to distribute to public school students.) Those students might be well-advised to stay home during those days, however, to avoid the likely chaos of the Olympic Games. The deck is stacked against Brazil in more than a few ways–pollution, illness, poverty, and crime all swarm around the event in Rio.

Erik Heil, an Olympic sailor, went for a test-swim in the Rio waters during an Olympic test event last August. After his exposure to the water, he became infected with the flesh-eating disease MRSA and had to be hospitalized. The Associated Press performed a test of the water, and the results are astonishingly bad–the analysis found “human sewage at levels up to 1.7 million times what would be considered highly alarming in the U.S. or Europe.” Athletes might refuse to participate in the Olympic events if their health is at risk.

It doesn’t help that Brazil has a reputation for being the murder capital of the world. And while Rio isn’t the most dangerous city by a long shot, crimes on the beaches of Ipanema and Copacabana have been escalating in recent months, in anticipation of a tourism influx. Plus, the connection between large sporting events and spikes in crime was well documented during the World Cup in 2014, when muggings grew 60 percent.

After the Ebola scare of 2014, international travelers are extremely sensitive to the health risks involved in visiting a new country. As concern about the Zika virus grows, would-be spectators, especially women, are less inclined to put themselves at risk–Brazil is in a part of the world where the Aegyptus mosquito, the insect responsible for most Zika transmission, is prevalent. Olympic officials have announced that event spaces will be regularly inspected, so that there are no puddles of stagnant water in which mosquitos could reproduce.

Brazil is also experiencing its worst recession in 25 years, amidst political turmoil–the government is considering impeaching President Dilma Rousseff, and the country’s economy is expected to shrink around 3.5 percent this year. Considering that the government has spent over 39.1 billion reais (about 10.8 billion dollars) on building stadiums and extending their subway lines, the investment could be a massive failure. All of these problems could spell trouble for the Olympics, but with so much money invested, Olympic officials are arguing that the show must go on. You might even be able to get cheap tickets to your favorite event–perhaps the newly added Olympic golf?

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 Brazil’s 2016 Olympics: Does Anyone Want to Go to Rio? appeared first on Law Street.

Could Donald Trump be rehabilitating Hitler’s image? White supremacist and former leader of the KKK, David Duke, sure thinks so. Four days ago, Right Wing Watch–a project started by People for the American Way that reports on activities of right-wing political organizations in order to highlight the risks of intolerant views–posted a short clip from Duke’s radio show, in which, Duke shares his views on Donald Trump and media intent on bashing Trump for his platforms on racial issues.

Duke starts off his rant about Trump by claiming that,

The reason there’s a war on Donald Trump is because there’s a war on the real America, there’s a war on the European-American majority of the United States of America.

He goes on to point out that, rather than Donald Trump perpetuating hatred and racism, it’s actually the media and their portrayal of Trump’s candidacy that does so. To a certain extent, sure, some media outlets do cast a negative light on Trump.

There are ads that highlight his nasty language.

There are ads that attack him for the Trump University scam.

There are even ads that attack Trump for not being as conservative as he purports to be.

But part of the problem with Duke’s argument–other than the fact that he is an avid white supremacist who whole-heartedly believes that white people are being actively discriminated against by the cultural melting pot America is becoming–is that Trump has time and time again used violence inciting and racist language in his speeches. The way attack ads against Trump are structured may play up his negative features, but they aren’t making things up.

Some of the recent criticisms of Trump  compare him to Hitler in the way he uses rhetoric to promote racist ideals and the way his speeches and rallies have begun to stir up violence.

Went to the Trump rally just to see how crazy it would be……..this is insane pic.twitter.com/QFwSwmNoI0

— Alex Satterly (@alex_satterly) March 19, 2016

In a recent article from the Wrap, a holocaust survivor explained that, although Trump hasn’t provided us with enough reasons to be worried about a Hitleresque regime yet, he is unsettling and the situation seems like it could get ugly. John Kasich released an ad that highlights the ways in which Trump’s discussion of race isolates groups of people the same way Hitler’s early rhetoric against Jewish people did, before his mass genocide began.

A Huffington Post reporter weighed in on this comparison, drawing a parallel between a recent Trump rally, where Trump asked supporters to raise their hands and swear to vote for him, to scenes from Nazi Germany.

Now the real kicker of Duke’s argument comes at around the 50-second mark when Duke states that, in comparing Trump to Hitler, all of his opponents are actually just rehabilitating Hitler’s image:

The truth is, by the way, they might be rehabilitating that fellow with the mustache back there in Germany.

He even claims that these commercials comparing Trump to Hitler aren’t going to have the effect people want: they will actually boost Hitler’s image instead of defaming Trump.

This claim is outrageous and it’s important to keep in mind that it’s coming from a man who, when addressing “European” people not two minutes later, said,

The government is purposefully wiping you out and your families and your children and your future. They are purposefully transforming this country into a Third World nation.

Duke clearly has some opinions about our country that are blatantly untrue and, if he really thinks that comparing Donald Trump and Hitler is going to improve the public’s perception of the largest, most racist mass murderer in the history of humankind, he’s even more out of touch with reality than it previously seemed. The good news? After all the confusion over whether or not Trump was willing to denounce Duke and the KKK a few weeks ago, he finally got around to making a crystal clear disavowal of the two. But the thought of comparing anyone to Hitler and having it improve Hitler’s reputation is obviously ridiculous.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Seriously? David Duke Claims Trump Comparisons Improve Hitler’s Image appeared first on Law Street.

The leading ladies of Shonda Rhimes’ three current hit shows–“Grey’s Anatomy,” “Scandal,” and “How to Get Away with Murder” are starring in an ad for the Hillary Clinton campaign. The spot is called “Real Life,” and will air in the states that have March 15 primaries.

Check out the spot here:

It stars Shonda Rhimes herself, whose shows dominate ABC’s Thursday night lineup. Also in the spot are Ellen Pompeo, the star of “Grey’s Anatomy,” Kerry Washington, the star of “Scandal,” and Viola Davis, the star of “How to Get Away with Murder.” The ad was directed by Tony Goldwyn, who also stars on “Scandal” as President Fitzgerald Grant.

The ad makes a direct reference to the fact that strong, independent women are a strong theme throughout Rhimes’ shows–Pompeo, Washington, and Davis’s characters all certainly fit that bill. They refer to Hillary Clinton as a real life version of the “brilliant, complex, overqualified, get-it-done woman” they play on TV. In the ad, the three women state:

Our characters are on television. … But the real world has Hillary Clinton — a bonafide rolls-up-her-sleeves, fights-for-what’s-right, in-it-for-you, won’t-back-down, champion for us all

There are other parallels between Rhimes’ shows and Clinton’s campaign. For example (“Scandal” spoiler alert) the first lady on the show, Mellie Grant, goes on to become a Senator and run a presidential campaign.

It’s not really a surprise that the stars of Shondaland are supporting Clinton. Shonda Rhimes has been endorsing Clinton for a while–in fact, she joined with a number of other feminist female celebrities in a separate spot back in February. The video also included Jamie Lee Curtis, Lena Dunham, Amber Tamblyn, Rosie O’Donnell, Amy Poehler, Jemima Kirke, Katy Perry, Retta, Gina Rodriguez, Mary Steenburgen, Tracy Anderson, Constance Wu, Zoe Kazan, Shannon Woodward, Katie Lowes and Uzo Aduba. The women all explained “why I’m with her.”

The next big contest between Hillary Clinton and fellow Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders will be on March 15, when Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio all take to the polls to case their votes. We’ll see if the Shondaland endorsement has any affect on the turnout.

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 Shondaland is With Hillary appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been feeling inevitable for a little while now, but it’s looking even more and more likely that Trump will become the Republican nominee, and possibly even our next President. But laughter is the best medicine (particularly when the sickness is racism, xenophobia, and terror) so the good people of Twitter started weighing in on what the U.S. will be like if Trump is actually elected President. This isn’t the first time the hashtag #IfTrumpWins has surfaced, but the submissions this time around are particularly relevant. The hashtag was started by Chris Hardwick of Comedy Central’s “@midnight with Chris Hardwick.” Check out the best of #IfTrumpWins in the slideshow below:

#IfTrumpWins you better start getting in shape for the 1st Hunger Games

— Ethan Bradly (@Ethan_Bradly) March 9, 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 #IfTrumpWins: Smiling Through the Pain appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential elections are upon us and for some of us young folk, myself included, this is the first presidential election we will be voting in. It’s an exciting time! We’re fulfilling our civic duty for the first time, making choices that will impact our futures in this country, and taking part in the democratic process we hold so near and dear to our hearts in this country. So, why am I angry? Because, for the first year I get to have a say in who gets to be president, all of my choices feel like a bad joke.

Starting with everyone’s favorite front runner, Donald Trump, let’s take a look at why I just can’t buy into voting for these candidates in my first election.

Where do you even begin when it comes to Trump–that he’s a big bully? Whether it’s attacking other candidates with rude remarks, threatening to ban Muslims from the U.S., or refusing to denounce the KKK, Trump has been a misogynistic, racist candidate since day one. One thing that’s certain is that he wouldn’t stop this abhorrent behavior as president. Whether you think his policy plans to build a wall in between the U.S. and Mexico are funny or just think it would be hilarious to elect this man president, think about exactly what Trump as a leader would mean for America before you cast that ballot–it’s not a great thought, folks.

If you just aren’t quite willing to jump aboard the TrumpTrain, it looks like Ted Cruz might be your next viable option, right? Wrong.

If Cruz is right about one thing, it’s that the Democrats sure are laughing at this pool of Republican nominees. Aside from rumors that Cruz may be the zodiac killer–which he hasn’t denied yet–and viral videos of how uncomfortably he acts around his children, what are Cruz’s actual plans for running the country? Well, he’s an active supporter of gun rights in our country, despite the fact that we’re currently plagued with firearm deaths. He also plans to increase deportation of immigrants, which is slightly better than building a gigantic wall between the US and Mexico. At the end of the day, the biggest hesitation when it comes to Ted Cruz is the fact that his facial expressions always just kind of look like he is struggling to escape an unsettling situation. There’s just something so unappealing about the thought of having to spend the next four years feeling uncomfortable everytime you look at the leader of your country’s face.

Next up on the chopping block, Marco Rubio.

Now, Rubio is one of the less outwardly mockable candidates of this year’s election. Other than his weird water drinking habits and some odd Nazi metaphors, Rubio has managed to stay pretty gaffe free, so, why not vote for Rubio? For starters, he’s basically out of the race. Even Rubio’s campaign has acknowledged how much of an underdog he is at this point.

The media may treat me like an underdog, but I’m an underdog that can win. https://t.co/i9gFxAgwK3

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 2, 2016

But even with the underdog point aside, Rubio’s staunch conservative social views are pretty off-putting and he certainly doesn’t hesitate to bring them up at every event he can. Plus, in case you hadn’t heard, Marco Rubio can’t even manage to do the job he has right now, with a very low voting rate in the Senate. Sure, campaigning and being a representative at the same time may be tough but come on, Rubio.

And finally, John Kasich.

Kasich might be alright if it weren’t for all the foot-in-his-mouth comments he manages to make on a daily basis. Some of the best? Most recently, his wonderful commentary on women:

How did I get elected? Nobody was — I didn’t have anybody for me. We just got an army of people and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up for me.

No woman should be “leaving her kitchen” to head out to the polls and vote for Kasich this primary season. Making sure that pie comes out as perfect as possible is way more important than giving another misogynistic male candidate validation.

There are also two contenders left on the left: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Compared to some of the Republican nominees, these two seem like saints for the most part, but they each has their flaws.

Bernie Sanders, on one side, is pretty much a socialist.

While it’s easy to side with Bernie on so many issues–like so many American youths have–his plans to accomplish his goals may not be what this country really needs. His tax plans, which would be great for evening out economic inequality, could cause serious economic problems in our country overall. There’s a lack of acknowledgement of the real world implications of a lot of his policies and, without that acknowledgment, his liberal plans feel a lot like a fairytale that could never come true.

What’s so wrong with Hillary Clinton?

Much like this gif suggests, she’s boring. Clinton has a history of flip-flopping on key issues and seems like she cares about things just to attract voters who care about the same issues. She’s also known to be hawkish on foreign policy, has not taken a strong stance against fracking, and will always have Bill Clinton’s scandals and policies looming over her. All in all, Clinton may be the best pick for president, but it’s because she’s the lesser of so many evils–is that really the way people should feel when they’re picking our next president?

Maybe I’m just too picky, or maybe the presidential candidate field really isn’t that great–who knows. It just feels a little underwhelming and infuriating that the first time I get to decide who to put in the White House, it’s going to be based on a “pick the person you hate the least” type strategy. I really wanted someone who I could stand behind unabashedly, but that may just be asking a little bit too much of today’s bipartisan mess of a political system. At the end of the day, the important thing is staying informed and making sure you know your facts before heading to the voting booths this November. And, until the dream presidential candidate appears out of thin air, here’s to whoever can beat Trump!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Angry About This Year’s Presidential Candidates? You’re Not Alone appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday night, something happened at the debate that deeply upset me. Donald Trump talked about his penis, and I realized I should probably write about it. Why, 2016 election cycle, must you make me contemplate things that I truly had no desire to think about? Why, Donald Trump, must you make insinuations about your dick size on national television? And why, America, must we be so enthralled with the borderline lunacy of this man that we then spend days talking about his penis? I am so very sad.

To be fair, I suppose, Donald Trump didn’t just come right out and make a declaration about his penis size. No, this was, bizarrely enough, a comment in reaction to Marco Rubio’s equally juvenile actions. Earlier this week, Rubio commented on how small Trump’s hands were, and said: “And you know what they say about guys with small hands…You can’t trust ’em.” Now that comment was clearly tongue-in-cheek–it was clear to everyone what Rubio was insinuating.

So, Trump decided to also address that comment at the debate on Thursday night after Rubio was asked a question about personal attacks on the Republican frontrunner. I have this image in my head of Trump sitting around with his advisors pre-debate, brainstorming the creepiest, weirdest way to announce that you have a large penis size. They succeeded.

Last night, Trump, referring to Rubio, stated:

He hit my hands — nobody’s ever hit my hands, I’ve never heard about this. He referred to my hands and said, ‘If they’re small, something else must be small,’ and I guarantee you there’s no problem. There’s no problem.

If you’d like to torture yourself, here’s the video:

Consensus appeared to be that people were upset by Trump’s crude statement, but not necessarily surprised. After all, this 2016 Republican primary has been marked by name-calling, childish antics, and complete nonsense–one of the most firmly establishment candidates, Rubio, was the one who started the hand size-penis size insinuation mess in the first place.

So, that’s where we are in American politics right now, our Republican presidential candidates are arguing about penises. This election cycle literally cannot be over soon enough.

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 I’m so Sad I Have to Write About Donald Trump’s Penis appeared first on Law Street.

Loyal, compassionate, obedient, and unconditionally loving: these two new presidential hopefuls seem to be everything this country needs.

Sick of the GOP and the Democratic Party? Sick of politicians in general? If so, you might want to check out the Canine Party.

Meet Butler Blue III and Georgetown Jack, two bulldogs who represent their respective universities (Butler University and Georgetown University). They have teamed up to run for the presidency this year.

The duo unveiled their campaign in a video posted to Youtube, and it is arguably the best (almost) three minutes of the entire election season so far.

“Take for instance, a homegrown set of Midwestern values matched with a West Coast kid turned Washington insider,” the narrator says in the video. “…or Butler Blue’s courage to speak his mind for the good of all and Georgetown Jack’s enduring composure, demonstrating unparalleled grace under pressure.” The video highlights their strengths–the narrator talks about “one’s unmatched goal oriented drive coupled with the other’s innovative efficiency.” It also states that “it’s clear the individual strengths of Butler Blue and Georgetown Jack speak for themselves, yet the combined power of this doggy duo speaks for America.”

While a dog has never held the presidency, many have resided in the White House, making it difficult for voters and opponents to discredit their legitimacy. This isn’t even the first time an animal has run for office. For example, the mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska who has been in office since 1997 is a cat named Mayor Stubbs. Duke, an eight-year-old dog, is the elected mayor of Cormorant, Minnesota.

I support the #CanineParty! No bones about it, @GeorgetownJack is the right choice. pic.twitter.com/GNHqg3GREy

— Chris Grosse (@Chris_Grosse) February 27, 2016

During an election season filled with surprise candidates who are favored because of their “distance” from politics, it would be no surprise to see these two candidates running up the polls and chasing the bone that is the presidency.

Huge #CanineParty endorsement coming in this morning from @zeldathebulldog! https://t.co/hfF2k7pnklpic.twitter.com/xzqWWE85Te

— Butler Blue III (@ButlerBlue3) February 29, 2016

In addition to these two pups, apparently the bulldog mascot of Drake University is also running for president, which he announced in November.

THIS IS IT! I’m announcing my official candidacy 4 President of the United States of America.#VoteGriff #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/EZHuQAv9Qw

— Griff the Mascot (@DrakeUGriff) November 14, 2015

We’re not sure which pup is planning on taking the presidency and who will be taking the VP position, but the strategic approach of running as a pair will definitely give them (two) legs up on the rest of the competition.

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 Georgetown, Butler Bulldog Mascots Strong Contenders for 2016 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 Republican presidential candidate that many had previously hailed as the most moderate GOP contender signed a bill Sunday to prohibit the Ohio state health department from contracting with entities that perform or promote abortions.

John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio and presidential hopeful, fulfilled his promise to defund Planned Parenthood, even though the healthcare provider is not specifically named in the bill. However slashing funds is one way that lawmakers plan to get rid of the healthcare provider, which just happens to refer patients to and provide abortion services.

The law will prevent roughly $1.3 million in funding from the Ohio State Health Department from going to STD/HIV testing, general health screenings, and prevention of violence against women. 

@CNN @JohnKasich pic.twitter.com/1xZb2a42uX

— Venisha (@Venishhhha) February 22, 2016

It should be noted that state and federal laws already prohibit taxpayer funds from going towards abortion services, except in the cases of rape, incest, and “therapeutic” abortions (medical diagnosis to save the mother via abortion).

@CNN @JohnKasich How about letting the women in this country dictate things?

— Bomber Doobie (@Bomber_Doobie) February 22, 2016

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards responded to the news, not surprisingly, unhappy and disappointed.

“It’s clear Kasich has no regard for women’s health or lives, and will stop at nothing to block health care for the tens of thousands of Ohioans who rely on Planned Parenthood,” Richards said in a statement. She added that it would have “devastating consequences for women across Ohio.”

While many see Kasich as the great moderate of the election season, his voting record when it comes to abortion says otherwise. As the Huffington Post has reported:

Just months after becoming governor, Kasich signed a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless the fetus is nonviable. In 2013, Kasich signed a budget that stripped roughly $1.4 million in family planning funds from Planned Parenthood, required abortion providers to perform ultrasounds on patients seeking abortions and allowed rape crisis centers to be stripped of their public funds if they referred victims to abortion providers, among other measures. The budget also blocked public hospitals from entering into transfer agreements for medical emergencies with abortion clinics, threatening clinics with closure if they couldn’t get a private hospital to enter into those agreements. Because private hospitals often have religious affiliations, this arrangement often wasn’t possible.

In all, nearly half of Ohio’s abortion clinics have closed since Kasich took office.

Kasich’s gubernatorial office spokesman Joe Andrews responded in a statement with:

The Ohio Department of Health has at least 150 other sub-grantees and contractors for the affected grants and projects addressing such issues as new born babies, infant mortality, expectant mothers, violence against women, and minority HIV/AIDS,” the statement said. “ODH will reallocate funding from ineligible providers under the new law to other currently eligible providers, ranging from local health departments and community organizations to hospitals and universities. These organizations will be required to submit proposals in order to receive funding.

The issues that arise from Kasich’s signing of the bill go past clinics not having proper funding. This goes as far as to cause issues with insurers and hospitals. As Cleveland.com reports, “…the Columbus Public Health department said it would be unable to contract with any Columbus hospital because they either provide abortion services, contract with abortion clinics, or refer patients to abortion services.”

In addition, Texas is a great example of what can happen when you remove a major women’s health service from Medicaid plans. Recently, women in Texas stopped using the most effective forms of contraceptives, and the birth rate rose (on the taxpayer’s tab), according to a study done by researchers from the University of Texas at Austin. According to researchers, the number of claims for long-acting contraception dropped by more than a third and births paid for by Medicaid shot up by 27 percent.

Of course, there is no way of saying definitively that this will happen in Ohio as well, but it would not come as a shock. As Guttmacher Institute’s Elizabeth Nash stated, “It’s one of the states people look to, to see what the next restriction is going to look like.”

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 Ohio Governor John Kasich Signs Bill that Will Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

Jeb! Bush makes me sad. He’s trying oh so hard, and failing oh so miserably to win the 2016 Republican nomination. Now, he’s done some truly awkward and bizarre things over the course of this election cycle–check out fellow Law Streeter Sean Simon’s roundup of the best Jeb! Bush moments–but one of the most bizarre ones actually happened last night. Jeb! tweeted out this photo:

America. pic.twitter.com/TeduJkwQF3

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) February 16, 2016

Obviously, we all know what Jeb! was getting at here–he’s a real, tough gun owner, just like the voters in South Carolina he’s trying to woo! He stands for the Second Amendment! He gets his name engraved on his gun, because nothing says tough like making sure your firearm matches your monogrammed bathrobe! He’s just like you! But, once the internet got its hands on the meme-worthy potential of this tweet, that message was utterly lost. Check out some of my favorite responses–some funny, some poignant–to Jeb!’s weird gun tweet in the slideshow below:

Yes @JebBush. America. pic.twitter.com/4Yhtdl2ygY — Éoin (@LabourEoin) February 16, 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 The Best Twitter Responses to Jeb! Bush’s Gun Tweet appeared first on Law Street.

This weekend, the remaining GOP candidates had what felt like the 876th debate of this election cycle (it was actually the ninth). The first two primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire, did their job and made the field much smaller, leaving just Donald Trump, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Jeb Bush, Dr. Ben Carson, and Governor John Kasich. But the smaller field didn’t lead to a smaller amount of BS being flung around the debate stage; check out the top five craziest moments of this weekend’s GOP debate below:

Everyone Was Confused About Supreme Court Nominations

Saturday’s debate was certainly affected by the fact that just a few hours earlier, the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was announced. It’s obviously a sitting president’s job to nominate a replacement, but that’s not what Senator Mitch McConnell said after Scalia’s death was announced:

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.

So, naturally, the candidates were asked about what they thought of Obama nominating a replacement. Every candidate on the stage essentially said that Obama shouldn’t nominate a new justice–despite the fact that that would guarantee an empty seat on the bench for at least a year, and there’s not some footnote in the Constitution that says that a President can only nominate a Supreme Court justice when he’s not a lame duck president. That didn’t stop multiple Republican candidates from speaking incorrectly about the U.S.’s history when it comes to nominating SCOTUS candidates. For example Ted Cruz incorrectly stated that “we have 80 years of precedent of not confirming justices in an election year,” despite the fact that Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and confirmed in 1988, while Reagan was a lame duck president.

This Confusion Led to Fact Checking by the Moderator

.@jdickerson tries to correct Cruz on Kennedy appointment, gets booed by audience for facts. #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/31bdGQoE7a

— Mashable News (@MashableNews) February 14, 2016

John Dickerson, the moderator, even pointed out that Cruz was wrong. The issue was that Cruz was conflating the terms nominating and confirming–and Dickerson sparred with Cruz over that issue, explaining that he just wanted “to get the facts straight for the audience.” At this point the audience decided to boo Dickerson, leading to a decidedly messy exchange all around.

But There Was a Lot of Booing on Saturday Night

Dickerson wasn’t the only one who got booed–much of the audience’s ire appeared to be aimed at Trump. Trump had a theory for why this kept happening–and turns out his theory might not be that off–that the crowd was packed with  “Jeb [Bush]’s special interests and lobbyists.” Turns out the crowd had a lot of moderate Republicans, due to the fact that the RNC gave tickets to local supporters, and people actively involved in RNC work are probably less likely to be big Trump fans. So, Trump got pretty heavily booed, but unfortunately it probably won’t diminish his still pretty solid poll numbers.

One of the Biggest Boos Was About 9/11

Jeb! Bush and Donald Trump had a pretty tense exchange over 9/11–Trump essentially blamed the terror attack on Bush’s brother, George W. Bush. Trump claimed that George W. didn’t keep America safe because he wasn’t able to prevent 9/11. Bush responded that he was pretty tired of Trump going after his family, and then to complicate things more, Rubio jumped into the mix to exclaim he was glad it wasn’t Al Gore in the White House during 9/11. The entire thing turned into a mess–check out the exchange: 

But One of the Biggest (and Weirdest) Fights of the Night was Rubio v. Cruz

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz got into an interesting spat over their shared Cuban heritage, stemming, as many criticisms of Rubio have, from his role in the Gang of Eight immigration bill. Cruz accused Rubio of contradicting his platform when he appeared on Univision and spoke in Spanish about immigration and amnesty. Rubio fired back by saying: “I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn’t speak Spanish.” So then Cruz responded in Spanish (although a bit shakily) to prove Rubio wrong:

WATCH: Cruz replies to Rubio in Spanish after Rubio said he “doesn’t speak Spanish.” #SCPrimary https://t.co/xGmJKNSzup — Good Morning America (@GMA) February 15, 2016

For a party that has taken an almost methodical approach to alienating Hispanic voters during this year’s election cycle, it was incredibly odd to see the debate devolve into a pissing contest over who speaks Spanish better.

A Final Takeaway

With Scalia’s recent death, it’s almost certain that the question of who will replace him will probably become cemented on the hot list of 2016 issues–immigration, Planned Parenthood funding, and how to deal with ISIS, among others. Saturday night’s debate has been referred to by many observers as the nastiest one yet, and given that the primaries are just starting to heat up, future exchanges will probably follow suit. 

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 Top 5 Craziest Moments from this Weekend’s GOP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

A whole host of Latino celebrities released an open letter this week, asking Americans not to vote for any of the current 2016 Republican candidates. While many of the celebrities who signed on to the letter have been speaking out against the Republican candidates’ various stances on immigration and other relevant social issues for a while, this letter takes the debate to a whole new level.

The celebrities who signed the letter, which was released on Thursday by the liberal advocacy organization People for the American Way, are: Yancey Arias, Esteban Benito, Benjamin Bratt, Peter Bratt, Raúl Castillo, Ivonne Coll, Wilson Cruz, Giselle Fernandez, America Ferrera, Mike Gomez, Lisa Guerrero, Dolores Huerta, Eva LaRue, George Lopez, Rick Najera, José-Luis Orozco, Aubrey Plaza, Steven Michael Quezada, Judy Reyes, Zoe Saldana, Miguel Sandoval, Carlos Santana, and Lauren Vélez.

The celebrities who wrote the letter particularly attack Donald Trump, and understandably so, given his consistent use of xenophobic rhetoric throughout the primaries. The letter states:

Of course, this downward spiral began with Trump. From accusing Mexicans of being rapists to kicking Jorge Ramos out of his press conference, Trump has spent the entirety of his presidential  bid stoking unfounded anti-immigrant fears and deeply offending our communities.

However, the letter also has issues with the other candidates as well, “including supposed “moderates” like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.” It reads:

We must not, though, let Trump’s xenophobia overshadow the extreme policies being pushed by every single one of the GOP’s leading presidential candidates. Latinos should understand that Donald Trump embodies the true face of the entire Republican Party. Sadly, he speaks for the GOP’s anti-immigrant, anti-Latino agenda.

[…]

The candidates cannot come back from these hardline stances. Trump is certainly an outlier for his racist remarks. But the rest of the Republican presidential candidates went off the deep end with him.

Given how large a part the debates over immigration, citizenship, and amnesty have played in the 2016 primaries, it’s not surprising that prominent Latino voices are coming forward. But the letter goes further than just decrying the 2016 potentials’ rhetoric, it also encourages Latino voters to work together defeat the possible Republican nominees–which could be a major issue for the GOP come the general election. If you want to read the entire letter, check it out 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 Latino Celebrities Pen Anti-Republican Open Letter appeared first on Law Street.

Ted Cruz has used an approach to campaign ads fitting for the current race: bizarre, inflammatory, and slimy. You might remember his “send-up” of Saturday Night Live commercial parodies, Cruz Christmas Classics. How about his Donald Trump Doll ad, where children argue over Trump and Clinton action figures while concerned parents look on? His newest ad, however, won’t be airing on TV or the campaign’s YouTube account, because Cruz’s people took the video down over a scandal concerning one of the actresses. His campaign has quickly replaced it with a new, anti-Clinton ad.

The removed spot, called “Conservatives Anonymous,” riffs on Alcoholics Anonymous, showing a support group for conservative voters who feel spurned by centrist politicians who are “Republicans In Name Only.” The ad slyly suggests at which candidate Cruz is taking aim when a blonde woman says “Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time.” The punchline hits when a new member enters the room, wearing a Marco Rubio t-shirt, asking “Do you guys have room for one more?”

The campaign learned that Amy Lindsay, one of the actresses starring in the advertisement, has previously acted in erotic films, finding that her filmography includes movies called “Secrets of a Chambermaid,” and “Insatiable Desires.” To be clear–the distinction between hard and soft core pornography is that in soft core material, no sex acts are shown, and in some cases, no genitalia. The films featuring Lindsay fit in the latter category, as she performed topless, and didn’t perform any sex acts with her co-stars. Lindsay took to Twitter to voice her disappointment:

Extremely disappointed the #TedCruz campaign pulled the national television spot I had a role in… #moretocome #myvotecounts

— Amy Lindsay (@amylindsayLA) February 12, 2016

But is it really reasonable to pull an ad simply because of one actress’s past? It may not line up with Cruz’s “family values,” but there’s no reason to conflate Lindsay’s performance in this advertisement with her past roles. We don’t eternally see Charlize Theron as a psychopathic killer or Viola Davis as a house maid. These actresses are afforded the chance to re-invent themselves for each role, whereas any actor who participates in a salacious role isn’t offered that chance.

It’s not as though Lindsay drags Cruz’s message into a seedy pornographic underworld–70 percent of American males 18-24 watch actually-pornographic material–footage much more explicit than the soft-core projects Lindsay participated in. In fact, 20 percent of men admit to watching porn during work. Somehow, for all the ubiquity of adult content in mainstream America, the presence of a person whose naked body is in other videos invalidates the message of the ad. Lindsay even identifies as a Christian Conservative, and her personal views actually mirror those of her character in the advertisement.

By this measure, Cruz’s campaign would also refuse to cast Matt LeBlanc, Sylvester Stallone, David Duchovny, and Adam West. Even Helen Mirren acted nude in sexual scenes in the pornographic film “Caligula,” only to later portray Queen Elizabeth. All of these actors have performed in either hard or soft core pornographic programs, yet continued to have successful film careers after the fact. It wouldn’t surprise me if from now on soft-core porn production companies refuse to cast Lindsay, citing her appearance in a Ted Cruz advertisement.

This effort to save face isn’t surprising from Cruz, or similar conservative candidates who hinge on the support of religious voters–often Evangelicals and Baptists. Though it may be a shrewd move, it’s simply unfair to allow an actor’s past roles color their other performances. Clearly politicians can’t be held to what they said or did in the past–so why shouldn’t actors be afforded the same leeway?

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 In Defense of Ted Cruz’s ‘Porn’ Actress appeared first on Law Street.

Fans who were excited by the prospect of Bernie Sanders appearing in this week’s episode of “Saturday Night Live,” also featuring Larry David, were not disappointed. Though he wasn’t in the cold open, nor did he pop up in the Sanders’ themed sketch, which poked fun at his campaign, Sanders did show up alongside David in a sketch about the tumultuous road to America on a ship in a rough storm.

The sketch subtly calls out some of Sanders’ political platform, as his character, Bernie Sanderswitzky, chastises David’s character for claiming to be more entitled to a seat on a lifeboat than anyone else, because of his wealth. “I’m so sick of the 1 percent getting this preferential treatment. Enough is enough!” Sanderswitzky yells out upon his arrival on the ship, as the live “SNL” studio audience claps and cheers. There is also a cute joke about Sanders being a socialist; Sanderswitzky has to clarify that everybody working together to get through a problem isn’t socialism, but, rather, democratic socialism.

In addition to the political humor, there are also some funny references to Sanders’ Jewish heritage and his New York accent. All in all? A great success and some helpful positive publicity for Bernie Sanders as we round the corner towards the New Hampshire primaries, where he is predicted to win with flying colors.

There was also a nice feature sketch on Sanders where Larry David played the Senator and joked about him losing by less than one percent in the Iowa caucuses. As an added bonus, the skit’s title, “Bern Your Enthusiasm,” is a great play off of David’s show, “Curb Your Enthusiasm!”

Overall, it was a funny night for Bernie Sanders fans everywhere, and a nice tension release in what has been a stressful month of election business. It’s always great to see guest stars with good senses of humor, and this sure hits the spot when it comes to making Sanders seem like a down-to-earth candidate willing to make fun of himself every once in a while.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Bernie Sanders is a Hit on “Saturday Night Live” appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve used the app Tinder, a match-making social app which allows you to “swipe right” on potential matches for a chance to chat with them, then you know there’s a fair share of duds. There are the people who can’t hold a conversation, ones who are too flaky to meet for a proper date, and ones who just blatantly want to get into your pants. Now, however, there may be a new Tinder plague, and it’s some Bernie Sanders supporters.

Tinder troll asks her matches to ‘Feel the Bern,’ gets banned https://t.co/8ZoazQ7MHM pic.twitter.com/S20SebyEiX

— Mashable (@mashable) February 5, 2016

That’s right–these ardent fans of Senator Sanders created Tinder profiles, and once they match with you, they bombard you with pro-Sanders arguments, and encourage you to vote for him in the primaries. Often, they’ll include a number to text “WORK” to, which donates $5 tacked onto a user’s phone bill to Sanders’ campaign. There’s even a Facebook page, called “Bernie Sanders’ Dank Tinder Convos” where fans share their ‘intellectual conversations’ with the unsuspecting (and single) public. “I won’t blow you, but Bernie Sanders will blow you away with his progressive policies” is one memorable rejoinder. One particularly jarring experience is seeing Bernie Sanders’ own face on a Tinder profile, as seen in this fake account created by a supporter.

Raleigh woman surprised by Bernie Sanders appearing on her Tinder app. He’s looking for votes, not a date. pic.twitter.com/oyW5q5nBrP

— Steve Daniels (@DanielsABC11) January 29, 2016

Some supporters are even paying up for the chance to spread the gospel of Sanders, by purchasing Tinder’s premium option. This lets them to choose alternate locations to ‘swipe’ in, allowing Sanders supporters all across the country to communicate to New Hampshirites. Curiously enough, I couldn’t find any examples of “Bernie Bros” doing this kind of canvassing, perhaps due to the fact that women get more ‘right swipes’ on Tinder, making their message-spreading more effective. Tinder is not so fond of this unlicensed marketing, as they’ve been banning users who abuse their service for political gains. That’s as it should be–Tinder is a safe space for matching with that kid from your high school calculus class ten years later, and should be reserved for such venerable acts.

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 “Bernie Sanders And Chill”: Using Tinder as a Canvassing Tool appeared first on Law Street.

The Iowa caucuses were on Monday and I, for one, am still experiencing a political hangover. It seems like so far the 2016 election cycle has been dragging on for a really long time, and we still have nine months to go before we actually even vote in the general election. It may be that general feeling of political exhaustion that inspired a hashtag to start trending today: #BetterWaysToElectPOTUS. The hashtag appears to have been originated by pop culture Youtube show Midweek Minute, hosted by a comedian named Will Presti.

While some of the submissions are serious, many are based on fantastic, non-sensical suggestions that really could spice up the 2016 race as it stands. Check out some of my favorite submissions below:

Buzzfeed quiz #BetterWaysToElectPOTUS

— Taylor Baxter (@itsTaylorBaxter) February 3, 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 #BetterWaysToElectPOTUS: Has Campaign Fatigue Set in? appeared first on Law Street.

The votes are in, Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton are the official winners of the Iowa caucuses, and the 2016 primary season is officially underway. Now that political commentators have some results to talk about the speculation will likely hit unprecedented levels, but what should we learn from Monday night? Let’s take a quick look at what happened, why it happened, and what we should take away from Iowa.

1. Trump didn’t meet expectations

At the end of the night, Donald Trump was not Iowa’s choice for the Republican nominee. In fact, he almost came in third after a surprise showing from Marco Rubio. How big of a blow this will have on the Trump campaign remains to be seen, but given that the phenomenon surrounding him didn’t quite meet expectations, we can expect to see some less Trump-centric discussion in the rest of the primaries. Trump still maintains a wide lead in New Hampshire so barring any massive shifts in the next week he will likely win there. But his image as a self-proclaimed “winner” was tainted a little last night.

Unlike Trump, Rubio ended up beating expectations with a third place finish. While most polls showed Rubio coming in third, he closed a lot of distance between the two frontrunners in the brief time leading up to the caucus. If you watched his speech Monday night it almost seemed like he won the whole thing, but for the Rubio campaign, a close third finish is a lot like winning.

2. Clinton and Sanders (basically) tied

It took until Tuesday afternoon to come up with the final tally for the Democratic side, but in the end, Hillary Clinton eked out a victory, though just barely. But for all intents and purposes, this race was more or less a tie. The Democrats have 44 delegates at stake here and they will likely be almost completely split between the candidates. Although to be fair, the Democrats have a very confusing process of allocating Iowa’s delegates–Iowan Democrats have their own county, district, and state conventions to determine the delegates to send to the national Democratic Convention where the winner will ultimately be chosen. Republicans, on the other hand, base delegates on the percentage of votes cast for each candidate.

Delegate weirdness aside, the results of caucus voting essentially determine the state’s winner. What’s more, Iowa’s 44 delegates are only an extremely small fraction of the total number of delegates needed to win the actual nomination (Democratic candidates need at least 2,382 of the 4,763 total delegates and Republicans need 1,237 of 2,472). The takeaways from the Iowa caucuses tend to be more momentum or narrative-based than an actual edge in the election. For this reason, you can interpret the results in many ways, but when you consider Iowa’s role in delegate allocation Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are basically tied going into New Hampshire next week.

3. Look at the demographics

To fully understand the outcome in Iowa, it is important to look at the demographics of the Iowa electorate, which put simply, does not look all that much like the rest of the country. The population and voting system in Iowa was ideal for Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. Caucuses tend to attract fewer voters than primaries and those voters are more likely to hold extreme views. This means that Ted Cruz, who is arguably the most conservative candidate in presidential election history, and Bernie Sanders who bills himself as a democratic socialist, were uniquely benefited by the typical Iowan caucus-goer.

New York Times reporter Nate Cohn, has a nice explanation as to why the tie in Iowa might not be enough for Sanders. Given that Sanders is the underdog in the Democratic race, a tie in Iowa could be spun as a significant achievement, but it is also important to note that Iowa and New Hampshire are considerably more favorable to him than other states might be. In terms of population, Iowa is considerably whiter than the rest of the country. According to the 2014 census, the United States as a whole is about 77 percent white, but over 92 percent of Iowans are white and that’s even more so the case in New Hampshire. So far, Hillary Clinton has managed to maintain her support among black voters, an extremely large part of Democratic Party. In some upcoming primary states, like South Carolina, black voters make up a much bigger portion of the electorate, which is part of the reason why Clinton holds a much stronger lead there. 

In Ted Cruz’s case, the high number of evangelical Christians in Iowa helped Cruz push his way to the top. According to exit poll data, 64 percent of Republican caucus voters identified as evangelicals. Tred Cruz won 34 percent of those voters’ support while Donald Trump came in second with 22 percent. Cruz also won the support of voters who identify as “very conservative” by a very wide margin, earning 44 percent of the votes from that cohort.

4. Don’t forget about turnout

It’s also important to recognize how few people vote in caucuses. Monday night’s caucus broke a record for turnout among Republicans, yet just over 185,000 people voted. Even fewer voted in the Democratic caucus, which had just over 171,000 people vote. To put this in perspective, there are over 2.2 million Iowans who are eligible to vote, and 1.5 million registered voters.

Based on the number of people who are eligible to vote, last night’s caucus had a turnout rate of just 15.7 percent. That’s important to keep in mind when talking about the Iowa caucuses, particularly when you couple that with the fact that so few delegates are actually up for grabs. While they may be important for momentum or winnowing the field, the Iowa caucuses involve a particularly small number of Americans.

5. We lost two candidates

By the end of the night, two candidates had officially suspended their campaigns: Martin O’Malley and Mike Huckabee. While this might be a good sign for those who are hoping to see the field trimmed, it’s probably still too early to call it a trend, particularly in an election cycle when more people have hung around despite abysmal polling numbers.

Also of note, while Ben Carson did not say he was suspending his campaign, he did announce that he is taking a break…but only to change his clothes. Yes, you heard that right, the campaign released a statement saying, “After spending 18 consecutive days on the campaign trail, Dr. Carson needs to go home and get a fresh set of clothes.” I’m not sure how much to read into that, but it does come amid a challenging time for Carson’s campaign. Unfortunately, we’ll just have to wait and see how long it takes for the field to narrow even further.

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 Five Takeaways from the Iowa Caucuses appeared first on Law Street.

We are constantly bombarded with headlines talking about presidential candidate Donald Trump as the frontrunner of the Grand Old Party, and we often ask “why?” and “what are people thinking?” and “when is he going to go away?” You know, causal questions. We all see the percentages, but how many people across the county really like Trump?

Only 33 percent, apparently.

According to the most recent two-week average from Gallup, 33 percent of Americans surveyed nationwide had a favorable view and 60 percent had an unfavorable view of the businessman, who has risen in the polls and garnered a hefty amount of media attention because of his fiery attitude and defiance of political norms and correctness.

In Gallup’s findings, Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport explains that Trump, “has a higher unfavorable rating than any nominated candidate from either of the two major parties going back to the 1992” (1992 was the first year Gallup recorded favorability percentages).

While Trump’s number seems a bit extreme, some of the other candidates aren’t too far behind.

Across all Americans, Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable rating is at 52 percent; Jeb Bush, 45 percent; Chris Christie, 38 percent; Ted Cruz, 37 percent; Marco Rubio, 33 percent; Bernie Sanders, 31 percent; and Ben Carson, 30 percent.

Check out a graph of some of the other ratings (modern and historical) below:

Data courtesy of Gallup.

This puts Trump’s net favorability in the negatives at -27 percent, and according to Gallup, is higher than Clinton and Bush’s net -10 percent favorability.

“The bottom line is that Trump now has a higher unfavorable rating than any candidate at any time during all of these previous election cycles,” said Newport. “That conclusion takes into account the fact that unfavorable ratings tend to rise in the heat of a general election campaign as the barbs, negative ads and heightened partisanship are taken to their highest levels.”

In the 1992 election, Bill Clinton’s highest unfavorable rating was 49 percent, while opponent George H.W. Bush’s unfavorable rating was higher and closest to Trump’s at 57 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama’s unfavorable rating ratings maxed at 37 percent and in 2012 raised to 48 percent.

The moral of the story is that if we blame Obama for everything now and he still had lower unfavorable ratings then, who knows what the world will become if a man like Trump becomes president. So, don’t believe everything you read about how much everyone likes Trump–it’s not technically true. 

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 Donald Trump is the Most Unfavorable Presidential Candidate In Recent Years appeared first on Law Street.

Republican presidential candidate and outspoken opponent of abortion, Carly Fiorina, reportedly benefitted financially while on the board for a company producing vaccines using fetal stem cells taken from aborted fetuses, according to corporate documents obtained by Al Jazeera America.

Fiorina served on the board of directors for Merck & Co., an international pharmaceutical company, from April 1999 to December 2000, according to SEC filings for both 1999 and 2000. She was paid at least $83,000 for her two years and was eligible for an additional $1,200 for each board meeting she attended.

Fiorina has been very open when discussing her stance on abortion. During one of the first Republican debates in September, she challenged Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and everyone in America to watch a non-existent portion of the–at the time—shocking sting videos created by the Center For Medical Progress, a known anti-abortion group.

On January 25, two of the activists from the videos were indicted in Texas for issues regarding purchasing human organs and an additional charge for tampering with a government record.

Fiorina has continuously said on and off the debate stage that she wants to defund Planned Parenthood, a non-profit that provides healthcare services, including abortion, but declined to comment on whether it is worth shutting down the government for, which has been a big budgetary issue brought up by many candidates during this election cycle.

Other candidates have also discussed using fetal stem cells from aborted fetuses. Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz R-Texas has supported the John Paul II Medical Research Institute, which conducts ALS research that “respects human life,” according to a statement made on Cruz’s Facebook page. 

According to the Los Angeles Times, during Fiorina’s 2010 run for the California Senate, she was seemingly in favor of using aborted fetal stem cells for vaccines. During a 2010 debate she clarified her stance, saying, “It is when embryos are produced for the purposes of destruction, for the purposes of stem cell research that I have a great deal of difficulty.”

It is unknown as to whether or not Fiorina was aware that aborted fetal stem cells were being used to make the vaccines, but it’ll probably be brought into the discussion on one of the stages at the next Republican debate scheduled for February 6.

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 Carly Fiorina Earned Money from Company that Uses Aborted Fetal Stem Cells appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, is evidently considering an independent run for President in 2016. According to sources close to the politician and media mogul, he “sees the Republican and Democratic presidential races as becoming increasingly polarized, and neither fits Bloomberg’s views.” While nothing is definite yet, the moves that Bloomberg and his people are making indicate that he is seriously considering that third-party bid.

Bloomberg’s concerns about the nominees extend to both parties–he reportedly doesn’t want to see a race that comes down to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz on the Republican side vs. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side. Edward G. Rendell, the former Governor of Pennsylvania and a past DNC chair told the New York Times that he believes:

Mike Bloomberg for president rests on the not-impossible but somewhat unlikely circumstance of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz versus Bernie Sanders. If Hillary wins the nomination, Hillary is mainstream enough that Mike would have no chance, and Mike’s not going to go on a suicide mission.

However, as much as he may dislike Donald Trump, Bloomberg’s campaign would take a page out of the Republican front-runners book–he would allegedly self-finance his campaign with the $37 billion he has acquired from his media businesses.

If Bloomberg were to join the race as an independent, he would be almost certain to take votes away from whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee. While Bloomberg has bounced around from party to party over his time in politics, many of his positions are significantly more attractive to Democrats than they are to Republicans. For example, he has long been a supporter of stricter gun controls, has donated money to Planned Parenthood, and worked to combat climate change. While he has also held some positions that are more moderate-right leaning, such as support for the financial services industry, it’s presumed that should he run as an independent, he’d draw voters more from the Democratic base than Republican.

Many are saying that the fact that Bloomberg is even considering a run is bad news for Hillary Clinton, who has seen her poll numbers take quite a bit of a hit in recent weeks. But, the primaries still haven’t even officially started, so there’s still quite a long road to go, and probably a while before Bloomberg would make any official moves.

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 Will Michael Bloomberg Jump in the 2016 Fray? appeared first on Law Street.

The two recent debates–the Republican debate on Thursday, January 14, and the Democratic debate from Sunday, January 17, were chock-full of strange exchanges and bizarre declarations. They were also strangely poetic; and the perfect reason to create some found poetry based on the standout performances from the debates.

For the uninitiated, Found Poetry occurs when a poet “select a source text […] then excerpt words and phrases from the text to create a new piece.” Politics and found poetry have been bedfellows before, such as when Donald Rumsfeld waxed philosophical about the essence of war in a series of found poems written by Slate’s Hart Seely. For the following found poems, all of the contents come directly from the listed speaker, and were spoken in that order. The titles, however, are of my own creation.

I Have Never Heard of the Geneva Convention

by Dr. Ben Carson

“We’re not going to bomb a tanker

because there might be a person in it”

Give me a break.

 

Just tell them that,

you put people in there,

we’re going to bomb them.

 

So don’t put people in there

if you don’t want them bombed.

You know, that’s so simple.

I Once Saw A Jewish Man on Television

by Ted Cruz

There are many, many

wonderful, wonderful

working men and women

in the state of New York

 

The values in New York City

are socially liberal or

pro-abortion or

pro- gay-marriage,

focused around money and the media.

Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want

by John Ellis Bush!

Donald, Donald — can I —

I hope you reconsider this.

 

So I hope you’ll reconsider.

I hope you’ll reconsider.

 

The better way of dealing with this

the better way of dealing with this

is recognizing that there are people in,

you know, the — Islamic terrorists inside,

embedded in refugee populations.

I Know They Talk About Me In The Back Of P. F. Chang’s

by Donald Trump

China —

they send their goods

and we don’t tax it —

 

they do whatever they want to do.

They do whatever what they do, OK.

 

When we do business with China,

they tax us.

You don’t know it,

they tax us.

 

I love China.

I love the Chinese people

but they laugh themselves,

they can’t believe how stupid

the American leadership is.

I Respect That You’re Taking My Lunch Money

By H. Rodham Clinton

Well, my relationship with him,

it’s — it’s interesting.

 

It’s one, I think, of respect.

We’ve had some very tough dealings

with one another.

 

He’s someone that you have to

continuingly stand up to because,

like many bullies,

he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can

unless you do.

I Don’t Know How To Use My Daughter’s iPhone

by Martin O’Malley

I believe

whether it’s a back door

or a front door

that the American principle of law

should still hold

 

that our federal government

should have to get a warrant,

whether they want to come

through the back door

or your front door.

Wall Street Has More Puppeteers Than Sesame Street

by Bernard Sanders

I do believe

we have to deal

with the fundamental issues

of a handful of billionaires

who control economic

and political life

of this country.

 

Nothing real will get happened

 

Unless we have a political revolution

Where millions of people finally stand up.

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 Found Poetry From Last Week’s Republican and Democratic Debates appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama has officially announced that he will not be endorsing a candidate in the increasingly contentious Democratic primary between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. This comes after some speculation that a recent op-ed written by Obama about gun control was essentially criticism of Bernie Sanders, but this morning on “Meet the Press,” Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made it clear that no endorsement was intended, and Obama does not plan on endorsing a candidate in the primary.

McDonough referenced the fact that Obama’s actions come with plenty of precedent, stating: “We’ll do exactly what has been done in the past.” He also added that no matter who the nominee ends up being, he will be “out there” campaigning. According to Fox News this is pretty traditional behavior:

George W. Bush didn’t endorse his party’s nominee in 2008 until March 5, by which point Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., had just about locked up the bid. Ronald Reagan didn’t endorse his sitting Vice President, George H. W. Bush, as the Republican nominee until May 1988. Reagan said he wanted to wait until the outcome of the nomination race was clear.

McDonough’s statement came after Obama published an op-ed in the New York Times late last week where he stated: “I will not campaign for, vote for or support any candidate, even in my own party, who does not support common-sense gun reform.”

Some viewed this as an attack on Bernie Sanders, who hasn’t taken as hardline a stance on gun control as Hillary Clinton throughout his career in the Senate. A point of particular contention has been that he supported a 2005 law that would give gun manufacturers legal immunity in instances where their guns are used to commit crimes.

However, Obama’s press secretary, Josh Earnest, indicated that the quote in Obama’s op-ed wasn’t any sort of reference to Sanders, saying:

The President was quite intentional about raising this issue as it relates to gun manufacturers, but that was not any sort of secret or subtle signal to demonstrate a preference in the presidential primary.

Earnest also pointed out that Obama wasn’t “intimately familiar” with Sanders’ voting record. So, while it isn’t surprising that Obama isn’t endorsing any candidate until the primaries are over, in this case it appeared that a repeat was necessary.

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 vs. Bernie: Obama Isn’t Getting Involved appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we cover the big issues that matter to our readers–from entertainment, to politics, to the law. ICYMI, check out our top issue briefs of the last year, and make sure you start 2016 just as informed as you were in 2015.

#1 School Dress Codes: Are Yoga Pants Really the Problem?

Image courtesy of eric pakurar via Flickr

Anyone who has been inside of a high school in the last five years has seen some interesting fashion choices by today’s teenagers. Teachers are expected to teach to the tests, teach students how to survive in the real world, personalize the curriculum for IEP students of all levels, and still have their work graded within twenty-four hours. And now? Some districts are adding another dimension: dress code enforcement. Dress codes are an important part of school culture, as they sometimes dictate whether or not a student can even attend class. Some things make more sense when it comes to the dress code: no short-shorts, no shirts with offensive sayings, and no pants that sag too low. There are also some questionable additions to the dress code, namely yoga pants, leggings, spandex running pants and other clothing that fights tightly to the body. With the seemingly endless stream of issues that American school teachers are responsible for this begs the question, are yoga pants really the problem? Read more 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: Top 10 Issues of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Well, it’s been a crazy year. Despite the fact that we will not vote for the next president of the United States until November of 2016, the primaries are in full swing, and Law Street’s been there to provide you coverage of every minute of it. ICYMI, check out our top 10 election posts from 2015.

#1 Top Five Funniest Hillary Clinton Emails from the Recent Release

Image courtesy of Paul Cohn/US Consulate Chennai via Flickr

Hillary Clinton’s emails have become a weird point of contention in the 2016 Presidential primaries. After it was discovered that she had sent emails from a private email address while serving as Secretary of State, many critics clamored for her to release them. Slowly, they’ve been declassified, and we’ve truly gotten to see some gems along the way. Check out the top five funniest Hillary Clinton emails from the most recent declassification 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: Top 10 Election Posts of 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was the third Democratic debate of 2015. Amidst a data-breach scandal and threats from Bernie Sanders’ campaign to sue the DNC, contentious back-and-forth about how to deal with ISIS, and a still messy Republican field, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Governor Martin O’Malley all had some shining moments on stage. But they also all had some awkward, and funny moments. Check out the top five below:

Hillary’s Gratuitous “Star Wars” Reference

A lot of Americans were pretty excited about the release of the new “Star Wars” film earlier this week. So, at the end of the debate, Clinton played into that hype,

That’s a wrap at the #DemDebate. Now go see Star Wars. https://t.co/2uyOmzf4ST pic.twitter.com/Kcb9bdLlgG

— POLITICO (@politico) December 20, 2015

Since then, there’s been a lot of speculation that her shout out may have been a reference to donor J.J. Abrams, or she may have just been trying to play to young voters who are gravitating more toward Bernie Sanders. Either way it was cute, but seemed a bit forced and camp-y.

Martin O’Malley Calls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Old

Martin O’Malley, who is the youngest of the three contenders by about two decades, pointed out the age difference at one point, stating: “can I offer a different generation’s perspective on this,” while talking about the situation in Syria. It was a cheap shot–but not an unfounded point. If elected, Sanders would be the oldest U.S. president ever, Clinton would be the 2nd oldest if she’s elected.

An Awkward Question About Spouses

This was a “laugh because it’s awkward” kind of funny moment, brought to us by the moderators. Martha Raddatz, an ABC News journalist, asked:

Secretary Clinton — first ladies, as you well know, have used their position to work on important causes like literacy and drug abuse. But they also supervise the menus, the flowers, the holiday ornaments and White House decor. You have said that Bill Clinton is a great host and loves giving tours but may opt out of picking flower arrangements if you’re elected. Bill Clinton aside, is it time to change the role of a president’s spouse?

It was a condescending question to subject any of the presidential candidates to, especially when there are way more important issues to talk about. Some commenters pointed out that there were no questions about abortion, and the stupid spouse question got as much time as systemic racism.

Just the Moderators in General

There were just a lot of awkward and funny interactions between the candidates and the moderators last night, including the candidates, at various times, talking over the moderators. Additionally, they started the debate without Hillary Clinton at one point, while she was in the bathroom, which gave us this hilarious moment:

.@HillaryClinton was late to the podium after a commercial break https://t.co/p7fumApIDe pic.twitter.com/y2jdWLn3dk — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) December 20, 2015

Accidental Innuendo from Clinton

This list wouldn’t be complete without some accidental innuendo from one of the candidates–in this case, Hillary Clinton. While discussing internet security, she made a reference to the concept of backdoors–essentially ways for the government to gain access to confidential, encrypted information. But the way she phrased it was “maybe the back door isn’t the right door,” leading to lots of giggles from less mature members of the audience.

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 Top Five Funniest Moments from the Third Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

It’s understandable that some of the Democratic and Republican candidates may not have put too much thought into their Halloween costumes yet–after all, it’s been a busy few weeks. So, we here at Law Street thought we’d help them out, and come up with some suggestions for a few of the candidates. Check them out below:

Bernie Sanders could go as Larry David

The senator from Vermont wouldn’t even have to get too creative on this one. He’s a dead ringer for comedian Larry David, who actually impersonated him on SNL a few weeks ago.

Bernie Sanders Thinks Larry David Impersonation Was ‘Pretty Good’ – ABC News https://t.co/33XTm0A2rZ#Headlinespic.twitter.com/EMjdzxtusv

— Stormbreaker (@iTwit_News) October 22, 2015

Ted Cruz as Grandpa Munster

According to some, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas looks an awful lot like Grandpa Munster from the Munsters–a 1980s CBS sitcom. It’s seasonally appropriate too, given that Grandpa Munster’s real name was Vladimir Dracula, Count of Transylvania, and a vampire.

Ted Cruz literally is grandpa Munster #GOPDebate@tedcruzpic.twitter.com/BCWQH4gPSa

— Lawyer with wine (@Esq_Wine) October 29, 2015

Martin O’Malley as Taylor Swift

After he regaled the hosts of the “View” with his rendition of “Bad Blood,” O’Malley should reprise his role as T-Swift for Halloween.

Lindsey Graham Could be an iPhone

Given his aversion to technology and email, and the earlier controversy when Donald Trump gave out his personal cell phone number, Lindsey Graham could make a convincing iPhone for Halloween.

Making my iPhone costume! @MaesieKostynuik @MegsDeAngelis #iphonecostume pic.twitter.com/Y2mzeiRvmX

— Julie (@JulieGeneroux) October 30, 2015

Jeb Bush Could be His Brother, or Father

Bush might as well save some money, and repurpose an old costume. I’m sure there are plenty of George W. and George H.W. costumes floating around out there.

Image courtesy of Steve Shupe via Flickr

Hillary Should Dress up as Tech Support

Given all the issues she has had with her email so far in this campaign, Hillary could moonlight as a member of tech support–Geek Squad, perhaps?

Image courtesy of Mike Mozart via Flickr

So there you have it–some suggestions for the 2016 candidates to celebrate Halloween in style. With only hope, they’ll take these suggestions seriously. 

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 Halloween Costume Suggestions for the 2016 Presidential Candidates appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories included a list of the safest and most dangerous states in the U.S., a look at Russia’s diplomatic interactions in the Middle East, and some of the best Twitter reactions to Joe Biden’s announcement that he won’t be seeking the presidency. ICYMI, check out the best stories from Law Street last week below:

1. Slideshow: America’s Safest and Most Dangerous States 2016

Alaska is the most dangerous state in the nation for the second year in a row according to the latest violent crime data from the FBI. Despite a slight decrease in its violent crime rate from 640 per 100,000 in 2013 to 635.8 per 100,000 in 2014–the most recent year for which the FBI provides data–Alaska maintains its number one spot, followed by Nevada (635.6) and Tennessee (608.4). Law Street’s third annual slideshow of the Safest and Most Dangerous States ranks all 50 states from most dangerous to safest and details the violent crime statistics for every city in the country with a reported population of 25,000 or more. Check out the slideshow here

2. Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East?

In September, Russian forces began a controversial air campaign in Syria in an attempt to increase the nation’s involvement in the Middle East. While some leaders have welcomed Russia’s increased involvement, many in the west have been skeptical of President Vladimir Putin’s motives. As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s position weakens amid an ongoing civil war, Russia has stepped in and with Iran’s help is ensuring he stays in power.

The situation in Syria is becoming increasingly complex as the Islamic State seeks to expand its control in the midst of a civil war between Syrian rebels and the Assad regime. But Russia’s intervention in Syria is only part of an emerging trend for the country, as it seeks to exert its influence outside of its borders. Recent developments have caused many to ask why Russia is intervening and what it hopes to gain. Read on to see what Russia has been doing to grow its influence and expand its role in the Middle East. Read the full story here.

3. Top Twitter Reactions to Joe Biden’s Announcement He Won’t Be Running for President

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.

If you haven’t noticed, Lincoln Chafee was running for president. You may have also noticed that on Friday morning, he officially dropped out of the race. His announcement marks the end of his four and a half month campaign, despite never polling above 2 percent nationally.

While I do not mean to belittle Lincoln Chafee–a distinguished politician who has been a Mayor, Governor, and Senator for the state of Rhode Island–nearly all of the evidence and discussion about his presidential bid has led to everyone asking why he ran in the first place. During his career, Chafee was a vocal opponent to the Iraq War and was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the use of force in the Iraq War (Chafee later switched to the Democratic Party in May 2013). But despite his record, his presidential campaign has been arguably the most underwhelming part of the 2016 primary race.

While Chafee’s campaign may have felt like it was over before it started, he officially  fell into obscurity during the Democratic debate. In the debate, Chafee launched a thinly veiled jab at Hillary Clinton, saying that the United States need to restore American credibility with the world and that the next president needs the best ethical standards. His affront was relatively bold–especially considering no one else on the stage was that willing to confront her–but when moderator Anderson Cooper asked if Clinton wanted to respond, she merely said “no.” That was that. No one pushed back; no one was outraged that Hillary Clinton didn’t have to answer a nearly direct challenge from another candidate.

When a longshot candidate announces his campaign to be president, many wonder if he is in the race to talk about the issues and force the other candidates to do so as well rather than actually get elected. But after the first Democratic debate, Lincoln Chafee couldn’t even do that much.

By most accounts, Chafee had a weak debate performance even if you don’t factor in his inability to engage Hillary Clinton. But it didn’t end there; in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN the next day Blitzer all but asked him to end his campaign right then and there.

Chafee’s campaign officially began back in June, and since then he has largely failed to generate attention. Foreign policy was one of his primary focal points, using the phrase “Prosperity Through Peace” as a major campaign tagline. He presented himself as an alternative to the more hawkish Republican party and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Arguably the highlight of his announcement speech was a call for the United States to switch to the metric system. While that might actually not be the worst idea, having it as a pillar of your presidential platform is questionable. I don’t know about you, but when someone says we need to change our measurement system, I don’t reach for my wallet to donate to their campaign.

Chafee’s polling remained steady since the beginning of his campaign, fluctuating between 0 and 2 percent. Yes–there have been several polls in which none of the respondents said that they would vote for Lincoln Chafee. At one point, Conan O’Brian took it upon himself to simply try and get Chafee up to 1 percent.

Money has also been a significant problem for Chafee. NPR recently took a look at all of Chafee’s major campaign donors–there are 10 of them. In total, he raised about $15,000. In fairness to Chafee, he did raise nearly $4,000 from donors whose names do not need to be disclosed because they gave less than $200 each, but still. For some comparison, Bernie Sanders has raised over $41 million from over 65,000 donors.

From the start of his campaign, it has been hard for anyone to really understand why Chafee was running in the first place. While he focused largely on his anti-war views, he was not unique in that respect. Bernie Sanders also opposed the war in Iraq and generally does not support the use of force abroad unless it is absolutely necessary. Chafee also trumpeted his integrity. He has often said, “I am very proud that over my almost 30 years of public service I have had no scandals.” While integrity is certainly something that people should look for in a candidate, it is not the only thing. Most people want someone they can trust, but who also has good ideas and a strong vision for the future–a combination that Lincoln Chafee never quite seemed to communicate.

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 Making Sense of Lincoln Chafee’s Bizarre Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Sources today are saying that Vice President Joe Biden is about to jump into the race for the Democratic nomination.

Fox News correspondent Ed Henry appears to have broken the story, and has had three separate sources confirm to him that Biden will be throwing his hat into the ring.

Three sources close to @VP telling me he's expected to announce he is running but the sources are all urging caution on 48-hr timeline

— Ed Henry (@edhenry) October 19, 2015

Henry was even more specific about a supposed date and time, tweeting:

The three sources say @vp telling supporters in calls planning to jump in race but not rushing — watch Sat Jefferson Jackson dinner iowa

— Ed Henry (@edhenry) October 19, 2015

Other prominent voices have also come forward to claim that Biden is ready to announce. A Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, Representative Brendan Boyle, also tweeted that Biden is likely to jump in soon.

I have a very good source close to Joe that tells me VP Biden will run for Prez — US Rep Brendan Boyle (@RepBrendanBoyle) October 19, 2015

Additionally, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware (Biden’s home state), also said earlier today that Biden is expected to “decide about entering the race soon.” While that’s a less definitive statement than those made by Hardy and Boyle, it’s indicative that an announcement is probably coming soon. As expected, there have been a lot of reactions to the most definitive news yet that Biden is going to be jumping into the race.

Breaking: A very good source close to @VP, told me Joe Biden likes Pumpkin Spice latte.

— Ana Navarro (@ananavarro) October 19, 2015

And here comes Joe Biden! pic.twitter.com/tfHJutYzSw — Irv (@thisisIRV) October 19, 2015

Fun Fact: Joe Biden has been considering running for president for 11 weeks, which is how long Canada’s entire election has lasted. — Ryan Teague Beckwith (@ryanbeckwith) October 19, 2015

Overall, this pre-announcement drama isn’t surprising–questions about Biden’s candidacy have been floating around since this spring. Sources leaking that a candidate is going to announce also aren’t new. It allows the buzz about the particular candidate to build in the days before he actual makes an official announcement. That’s exactly what appears to be happening with Biden. 

Given that Biden hasn’t officially announced yet, this is a breaking story, so make sure to check back for updates.

But for now, the waiting time is upon us: 

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 Political Rumorville: Joe Biden is in….Maybe? appeared first on Law Street.

Like most elections in recent history, the hot button topics politicians use to illicit an emotional response from voters include education, immigration, and healthcare. Yes, we’ve all heard about Trump wanting to build a wall along the Mexico border. We have developed hope for Bernie Sanders’ plan to decrease student loans.  We have heard one Republican after another decry Planned Parenthood for its supposedly illegal and morally questionable actions.

But the issue is bigger than Planned Parenthood. For many people, Planned Parenthood is a safe, reliable, and cost-effective solution that provides necessary men and women’s healthcare. It performs safe, legal abortions, yes, but more than that provides counseling, exams, pre- and post-natal care to pregnant women, as well as more general healthcare needs.

Again, the issue here is not what Planned Parenthood does or does not do. It’s a deeper problem of government bodies thinking it is okay to prevent women from having control over their own bodies and healthcare. It is not the job of Congress to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. That should be between her and her doctor WHEREVER she chooses to receive healthcare. Why should women who choose Planned Parenthood as their primary source of healthcare be denied these very beneficial services because some people in the government disagree with one of those services?

Protesters of Planned Parenthood think the organization should not receive federal funding because it performs abortions. Yes, it receives money from the government. As do all other non-profit, public health services. Planned Parenthood receives over one-third of its yearly funding from federal sources, but none of that can be legally allocated to abortion services, so that argument falls flat. Any money it receives from the government goes toward the very real need for reliable and affordable healthcare.

Republicans and Pro-Lifers like to cite the recent smear campaign videos that came out about the Planned Parenthood clinics. Carly Fiorina even used those videos as support for her arguments during the last debate.  Unfortunately for Fiorina, the scenes she talked about don’t exist, and the videos have been doctored. Planned Parenthood is not illegally harvesting and selling fetal tissue. But that truth has largely been ignored.

Let me repeat: those videos were discredited. Yet, they keep coming up. Why? Because they cause a reaction, and politicians know that a majority of people will go with emotions first and check facts later.

But we must check facts, because otherwise organizations that help people–like Planned Parenthood–die out, and thousands of women will suffer the consequences.

Next time someone decides to justify taking funding away from Planned Parenthood by citing its abortion services, which aren’t even funded by their federal grants, tell them the facts. Abortion services are only a small percentage of the many healthcare options the clinics offer, and your tax money does not go to them. Think about the women who rely on those clinics to receive life-saving care, and remember that not everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth is true.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Planned Parenthood Debate is Not About Abortion, It’s About Women’s Healthcare appeared first on Law Street.

Scott Walker has officially dropped out of the race to become the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. In such a crowded field, it’s not surprising that the herd is starting to thin itself, at least a little bit. But what is surprising is the reasoning that Walker gave–his announcement contained what was clearly a not-so-veiled jab against frontrunner Donald Trump.

Walker’s brief, but powerful, statement is below:

He began with comments about Ronald Reagan’s optimism, a characteristic he noted was lacking from the stage at the debate last Wednesday, which it just so happens was hosted at the Ronald Reagan presidential library in California. Walker parlayed that statement about lack of optimism into an indictment on how the primary race has been progressing so far, and then his announcement that he will be suspending his campaign.

He stated:

Today, I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to the top of the field. With this in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately.

I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive, conservative alternative to the current front-runner. This is fundamentally important to the future of our party, and, more important, the future of the country.

The “current front-runner” is really the crucial part here–Walker is clearly referencing business mogul Donald Trump, who soared to the front of the polls despite his consistently racist, sexist, petty, and inappropriate rhetoric.

This sudden burst of patriotism and a desire to fight Trump obviously isn’t the only reason that Walker is dropping out–this isn’t a purely altruistic move. Walker burst onto the scene as a potential frontrunner when he declared his candidacy this summer, but quickly stagnated after a lukewarm performance in the first debate, and hasn’t done much to stand out since then. In fact, dropping out of the race is by far the most interesting and news-worthy thing that Walker has done since he declared his presidency. Given Scott’s stagnating campaign, money was apparently slow coming in, and his campaign allegedly was having a hard time paying his bills. There were also allegations that his campaign wasn’t built up properly, or was mismanaged.

Most recently, there are rumors that Walker’s campaign is coming to an end as a result of some sort of scandalous story that’s due to break in the next few days. Buzzfeed has claimed that there’s a rumor being passed around by top donors about Walker’s campaign manager, Rick Wiley, but did not explain what the rumor concerned. A former campaign worker, Liz Mair, has mentioned the possibility of a scandal, but what it could be about is still very much unknown.

So, why exactly Walker dropped out is incredibly unclear, but he did choose a monumental and effective way to do so. While he probably could have lasted a little while longer, dropping out when Trump is still in the lead by quite a bit gave a powerful credence to his comments. Given that Walker wasn’t polling particularly well, who knows where his share of the voters will end up, but he certainly made some pretty powerful points about coalescing against a candidate who can take down Trump.

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 Scott Walker Suspends Campaign, Gives Trump a Metaphorical Middle Finger appeared first on Law Street.

The second Republican primary debate of the year was aired last night by CNN and took place at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. It was a three hour debate that left me with more questions than answers–for example, did they really all go that entire stretch without having to use the bathroom? But, tradition dictates that we boil down those three hours into some gifable snapshots, so without further ado, check out the top ten moments from the second Republican debate.

10. Mike Huckabee Appealed to Millennials with a Reference from the ’80s

Mike Huckabee referred to the Republican field as the “A Team” and decided that Donald Trump was Mr. T, saying:

I think we are in fact The A-Team. We have some remarkable people. We even have our own Mr. T, who doesn’t mind saying about others, ‘you’re cool.’

Pop culture references are a great way to appeal to the masses–and if he had picked something less than 30 years old (we’re not counting the horrible 2010 remake) it might have been successful.

9. Marco Rubio Made a Fun Reference

One of Marco Rubio’s early introductions to the national stage was when he gave the Republican response to the State of the Union back in 2013. During the speech he took a fantastically awkward sip of water:

But last night, Rubio paid homage to that really awkward moment by bringing his own water to the debate. It was a sweet and dad-joke like, but I’m not sure how much of a splash it made.

We’re entering the next phase of the #GOPdebate. Anyone need refreshments? http://t.co/tdQhhyEBDb pic.twitter.com/ki3fr601BE

— Guardian US (@GuardianUS) September 17, 2015

8. Donald Trump Proves his Mature Rhetorical Mastery

Trump, on immigration: “First of all, I want to build a wall-a wall that works. We have a lot bad dudes, from outside, in this country.” So eloquently put, Trump, although I do have to admit “bad dudes” is a bit more PC than calling swarths of the population “rapists.”

7. Carly Fiorina Makes Things Up

Carly Fiorina went on a weird, grisly rant about Planned Parenthood that would have been strategically powerful if it was in any way true. She stated–presumably in reference to the much-edited Planned Parenthood hit videos created by the Center for Medical Progress:

I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.

The videos were disturbing to be sure, even though they were patently fiction. But at no point did those videos even come to close to portraying a fully formed fetus kicking its legs–Fiorina at this point was over-exaggerating exaggerations in an incredibly upsetting way. It’s one thing to be anti-choice, it’s another thing altogether to use lies and fear-mongering to prove your point.

6. Everyone Got Handsy with Donald Trump

Donald Trump was flanked on stage by Ben Carson and Jeb Bush, and at various points he exchanged really awkward high fives/handshakes with each of them. First was Ben Carson, who was very reluctant to get involved in the entire situation: But Jeb Bush got a little too enthusiastic, and actually appeared to make Trump flinch: 

Here you go Twitter pic.twitter.com/9wfzAQGftg — Brandon Wall (@Walldo) September 17, 2015

5. Winner of the Happy Hour Debate (Literally): Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham had my favorite quote of the earlier happy hour debate, which featured the candidates who aren’t polling well enough to make it to the main stage. Graham, who has his priorities in order, stated: “That’s the first thing I’m going to do as president. We’re going to drink more.”

He was referring to Ronald Reagan’s tradition of drinks with Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, but it still makes for an awesome one-liner, and I wholeheartedly approve.

4. Chris Christie Gets Fed Up

Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina got into a spat back-and-forth about their business records, and Christie got really damn tired of listening to it. He eventually said:

 The fact is that we don’t want to hear about your careers. Back and forth and volleying back and forth about who did well and who did poorly. You’re both successful people. Congratulations. You know who is not successful? The middle class in this country who’s getting plowed over by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Let’s start talking about those issues tonight and stop this childish back and forth between the two of you.

While I’m normally not a Christie fan, and I don’t agree with the claims in his comment, here’s some well-deserved applause for shutting up that annoying Trump and Fiorina spat:

3. Jeb Bush Tries to Prove He’s a Cool Kid

Jeb Bush attempted to get some street cred in the lamest way possible–by admitting he had smoked  marijuana 40 years ago and his mom doesn’t approve:

So, 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did.

 

2. Fiorina Takes Down Trump

You can watch this one yourself:

.@CarlyFiorina responds to @realDonaldTrump‘s comment about her face #CNNDebate http://t.co/jcEf6bW9ja #GOPDebate http://t.co/m0eDU5NvhT

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 17, 2015

Ok, now we actually do have a bad ass over here.

1. Some Really Lame Answers to the “Which Women You’d Put on the $10 Bill Question”

As a fun, easy question toward the end, the moderators asked each of the debaters “Which woman would you put on the $10 bill?” Some answers were fine–Susan B. Anthony,  Rosa Parks, Clara Barton, and Abigail Adams are all admirable American women. But some of them were flat-out ridiculous. For example, three of the candidates–Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson–all cited female family members. Huckabee chose his wife, Donald Trump chose his daughter, and Ben Carson named his mother. While those are nice answers and may have been good responses to “who inspires you,” they’re also total cop-outs and a bit insulting. Women have done so many great things for this country and none are included on our paper currency–yet three of the eleven candidates couldn’t even name one.

Then, Jeb Bush gave arguably the weirdest answer all night–put Margaret Thatcher on the $10 bill. Alright Jeb Bush, please do remember that if you want a fighting chance, some American women will have to vote for you. Although at this point, I haven’t the foggiest why we would.

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 Top 10 Moments from the Second Republican Debate appeared first on Law Street.

It has now become virtually physically impossible to get through the day without hearing a news story about Donald Trump making someone mad. But the latest story to come out of The Donald’s terrifyingly successful attempt at a 2016 run might be a bit more threatening than just angry onlookers–it’s a lawsuit. A group of protesters are suing Trump, after they claim they were attacked by his security team.

The five protesters who are plaintiffs in the recently-filed case are, in their own words, “human rights activists of Mexican origin.” The protesters were there to speak out against Trump’s much-maligned rhetoric about immigrants. They were holding up signs outside of an event last Thursday in New York at Trump Tower in which they riffed off Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again.” Instead, they held signs that read “Make America Racist Again.” Trump’s director of security and long-time guard, Keith Schiller, grabbed the sign from a protester. That protester, named Efrain Galicia, ran after Schiller to try and grab the sign back, and started pulling at it. It was at that point that Schiller turned around and hit Galicia. Here’s a video of the altercation:

It’s in this light that Galicia and his fellow protesters are suing, alleging violence, theft of property, and interference with political speech. They’re also seeking an injunction that would keep members of Trump’s security team from interfering with protesters at various events. Overall, they’re framing their case at least in part from a public free speech angle.

Galicia’s lawyer Benjamin Dictor told New York Daily News:

The video in a sense speaks for itself. The actions were just exceedingly aggressive especially given the fact that demonstrators were on a public sidewalk speaking out about issues of public concern.

Dictor also stated:

There’s obviously a larger issue at play here, which is individuals from the community speaking out in public about issues of public concern in a public space. In the most public of spaces on the most public of issues.

Named in the lawsuit are Schiller, the rest of Trump’s organization, and Trump himself. They aren’t going down without a fight though–in the immediate aftermath of the incident, a spokesman from Trump’s campaign claimed that the protesters were causing disturbances on the sidewalk and had committed violence against Trump’s security team themselves. There has been talk that Trump’s team might actually sue the protesters as well.

This scuffle and resulting lawsuit really don’t come as a surprise after many of Trump’s recent comments have sparked calls for protests. As this election cycle continues to heat up, this may not be the only altercation we see between Trump’s security and protesters that we see.

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 Donald Trump Sued by Protesters Who Scuffled With His Security Team 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.

The “Selfie Campaign.” Kind of has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Well that’s the best way to describe what two sisters from New Hampshire are attempting, after vowing to take a selfie with every 2016 presidential candidate.

Presidential candidates are lining up to take a selfie with these teenage sisters http://t.co/aoux92E1ZL (via Twi… pic.twitter.com/pv3cHIAC0Z

— Joseph Abraham (@kjosephabraham) August 1, 2015

Sisters Addy Nozell, 17, and Emma Nozell, 15, are no strangers to politics and presidential campaigns. In fact, the girls have been taking selfies with politicians before “selfies” were even part of popular culture. Emma recalls being exposed to politics at a young age by their parents saying,

We were always in the parades. We were always making signs. We were always helping them [the candidates] with whatever was needed.

While neither of these girls is old enough to vote in the primaries, they are already making a name for themselves with the candidates. In fact, Donald Trump, the current leader of the Republican polls, was seemingly expecting the girls to approach him at a rally at the Weirs Beach Community Center, telling the girls, “oh, alright let’s get the selfie.”

The “selfie sisters” of New Hampshire can scratch Donald #Trump off the to-do list. #WBZ @PaulaEbbenWBZ @mytv38 pic.twitter.com/HmndYrIkdr

— Liam Martin (@LiamWBZ) July 17, 2015

With a crowded field of 20 plus candidates, the girls’ campaign sounds almost impossible. However, they’ve already managed to snap pics with 17 of the candidates in less than a month since they started their quest on July 2 with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The only hopefuls that have yet to “say cheese” with the girls are former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R), former U.S. Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia), and currents Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R- Florida), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

Meet Addy and Emma — the “presidential selfie girls” @PrezSelfieGirls http://t.co/ZetxWY3jgW pic.twitter.com/QvVHRdR8MV

— Deena Zeina Zaru (@DeenaZaruCNN) July 13, 2015

More often than not, selfies from teenage girls are duck-faced and distorted, which has led critics of the trend to call the practice superficial and narcissistic. And while for some that may be the case, the Nozell sisters have a different strategy for their “prez pics” at least in part thanks to their mother, Wendy Thomas. The girls practice “selfie etiquette.”  “You can’t stick your tongue out, you have to be respectful,” says Thomas. More importantly, the girls’ mother made it a point that selfie sticks are not permitted. “You gotta go with the old-school selfie and use the arm,” shared Emma.

Addy and Emma’s approach to the “selfie” can be used as a tool for keeping millennials engaged in the presidential race rather than solely for self-promotion. The Nozell sisters are conveying the notion that presidential candidates are generally approachable human beings who can relate to young people, at least when it comes to the preferred method of photo-taking. These girls are becoming increasingly popular and it will be interesting to see if candidates view taking selfies with the girls as a tactful method of gaining publicity among young people.

According to the girls, they have yet to settle on a favorite candidate, but are looking forward to hearing from all of the presidential hopefuls. It’s great to see what started as a fun opportunity morph into an example of youth engagement and educational opportunity–and the sisters show no sign of stopping until they’ve reached their goal.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Wanna Vote For You, But First Let Me Take A “Selfie” appeared first on Law Street.

Can Afghanistan stabilize as U.S. forces plan their exit? This was the question posed to five foreign policy experts at a United States Institute of Peace (USIP) panel I attended on Tuesday morning. The panelists examined ongoing crises in Afghanistan and addressed the next steps that they believe are essential to protect the future of the state. My major takeaway from the panel is that serious reconsideration should be given to whether or not leaving Afghanistan is the best policy at the present time. As a student studying international relations, I’ll admit that I am biased in my interest in this topic. But this decision affects us all and given the current status of Afghanistan, should be debated throughly among the 2016 presidential contenders. My vote will not be for a candidate who does not have a polished foreign policy strategy designed to work with the needs of Afghan leaders and communities.

There are certainly many very prevalent concerns about the state of Afghanistan. USIP’s Dr. Andrew Wilder opened the discussion by saying, “We’re going to struggle to find a few positive things to say during our panel.” Wilder, Vice President of South and Central Asia programs, just returned from Afghanistan on a USIP assignment and said the current situation in the country is bleak. Political paralysis, a sense of economic collapse, a deteriorating security situation, and rapidly fading international attention have caused turmoil in Afghanistan. There are international fears that the national unity government (NUG)–which was just formed in September 2014–may not be able to withstand the external violence and the internal political fragmentation and ethnic divisions within Afghanistan. Wilder said that we have arrived at a critical juncture in Afghanistan and the next several months will tell whether or not the country will be considered a “success story for U.S. foreign policy.”

These revelations coincide with the U.S. presidential candidacy announcements and I am skeptical of the fact that these pressing issues are not in the forefront of any campaign. The United States’ plan to withdraw troops by the end of 2016 and the international community’s decision to significantly cut foreign aid to the country are untimely, given the many factors contributing to the turmoil occurring there.

For example, security concerns in the state are still paramount. Ali Jalali, USIP Senior Expert in Residence on Afghanistan, discussed these issues, saying that there is tension within the government of Afghanistan to maintain unity and to govern effectively, and “sometimes effectiveness has been disregarded to maintain unity.” According to Jalali, in 2015 Afghan security forces, including local police, have suffered a 70 percent increase in casualties from this time last year. The average count of casualties per week currently stands at around 330. This increase in violence is directly related to the decrease of foreign aid and military services. The toxic combination of a new unstable government with leaders who have not yet been proven trustworthy, and the simultaneous withdrawal of U.S. troops is increasing the likelihood of a resurgent Taliban and potentially wasting years of war and the American lives lost during the conflict. The withdrawal at this critical yet sensitive time in Afghanistan’s move toward stabilization also provides the perfect breeding ground for ISIL to gain power and control. How to deal with those concerns will be a major hurdle for our next leader–the hands-off strategies we have mapped out will almost certainly need to be rethought.

Another consideration is the precipitous decline in economic growth sparked by the international drawdown of troops and aid–expanded upon at the event by Dr. William Byrd, USIP Senior Expert on Afghanistan. Byrd stated, “The fiscal crisis is quite dire with no end in sight.” He offered his opinions on how to make economic improvements in the country, but all of the strategies are so fundamentally intertwined with security and political implications that it is difficult to offer many viable solutions. For example, Byrd said that the best way to make improvements in the short run is by increasing the number of businesses in the country; however acknowledged that, “businessmen will look at the political and security situation and will not want to invest in Afghanistan due to the instability.”

To improve the chances of the Afghan government’s survival, the U.S. needs to support the NUG militarily, politically, and financially. Scott Smith, Director of USIP’s Afghanistan and Central Asia program, stated, “Two years is far too short a period to have all of this take place.” In other words, the level of support necessary to prevent collapse in Afghanistan cannot be achieved with a 2016 U.S. withdrawal. The United States and the United Nations should adopt a situational withdrawal policy rather than a time-oriented plan. We need to stay until the situation is stabilized and finish what we started. Yes, we should push for eventual Afghan independence, but we should not expect that so soon; to do so is detrimental to a potentially stable future. Politicians and voters should be rethinking these decisions and questioning whether they value idealistic or pragmatic plans more. Dr. Wilder ended the discussion by stating, “We should try to remain engaged, certainly not at the levels of the past, but enough to increase the prospects of peace, stability and independence in Afghanistan.” This advice should act as a guide for our presidential contenders and is something all Americans should keep in mind as we move toward 2016.

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 U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Timely or Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

Former Governor Jeb Bush has a notorious reputation that stems from years prior to his intentions of running for president. There’s his grandfather, Prescott Bush, a U.S. senator who allegedly collaborated with Nazis during WWII; his father, President George H.W. Bush, who was accused of formerly working with Osama Bin Laden; and his own brother, President George W. Bush, who is blamed for the War on Terror that cost our nation up to $1.7 trillion dollars. So in order to run a successful campaign, Jeb Bush will need a lot more than money and his last name. In fact, those very things might be putting him at a disadvantage, and motivating his strategically designed campaign to avoid his inheritance. Here are four of the most recent instances that show Jeb Bush’s very cleverly marketed campaign strategy:

Distancing Himself from the Bush Name

Despite years of a political presence, it seems that Jeb Bush is trying to distance himself from the “political dynasty” the Bushes are linked to. On Monday June 15, Bush formally declared that he was running for president of the United States. His announcement was accompanied by signs which read “Jeb!” but there were no mentions of his last name anywhere. Insisting that his family name gave him no unique claim to the Oval Office, Bush explained that he is not entitled to the position but rather wants voters to view him as an executive animated by big ideas and uniquely capable of carrying them out. He made reference to his record in Florida of  expanding charter schools, introducing a taxpayer-financed school voucher program, reducing the size of the state government by thousands of workers, and cutting taxes by billions. Bush further added to his individualistic approach toward the candidacy by saying: “Not one of us deserves the job by right of resume party, seniority, family or family narrative… It’s nobody’s turn. It’s everybody’s test.”

A Liberal Approach to Immigration

Unlike his brother, father, and most Republicans, Bush has a very large Hispanic following. It’s true he has family connections–his wife Columba is Mexican–but his stance on immigration is a larger contributor to this following. Bush takes a relatively liberal approach toward the way future America ought to handle the immigration issue. Bush has been cited as “empathetic” toward illegal immigrants, and has referred to their actions as an “act of love” rather than a crime. In his book “Immigration Wars,” Bush actually makes the claim that immigrants are vital to the United States, and that we are not bringing in enough highly skilled immigrants to meet our needs and to maximize future American prosperity. Although highly controversial in the conservative community, Bush has stood by this position. Furthermore, Bush is a strong advocate for granting illegal immigrants a pathway to a legalized status rather than sending them back over the border. So it’s no surprise that Bush has secured relatively strong Hispanic support.

Six Months of Informal Campaigning

Bush clearly understands the campaign steps he must follow in order to win. Despite his prolonged decision and extended time–almost six months–of unofficial “campaigning” Bush now has a clear idea of what he must do to make this race exciting. Rather than quickly appearing in the spotlight like his Republican competitors Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Bush took the strategic approach of what could be called hypothetical campaigning. His unofficial campaigning not only permitted him more time to travel to different towns and listen to individuals requests, it allowed him to spend more money on his unofficial campaign than his competition. What many deemed as “illegal campaigning,” is actually entirely legal given that he technically was not an official candidate for the presidency until Monday. Bush was strategic about his approach to the campaign, seemingly knowing that his Super PAC, Right to Rise, was legally allowed to continue raising money without becoming subject to campaign finance laws so long as Bush did not officially acknowledge himself as a candidate. Super PACs are not subject to donation limits, while candidates can only accept $2,700 per donor per election. Had Bush decided to declare his candidacy six months ago when he started his hypothetical campaign efforts, any Super PAC bearing his name would have been limited to accepting less. Critics have argued that Bush’s tactics were illegal,  however the various rules in place indicate that’s probably not the case.

His Venue Choice and Spanish Skills

Of all places to announce his presidential campaign, Bush chose the Miami Dade College campus. MDC is comprised of a large community of Hispanic students and workers. Bush reportedly gave parts of his speech in Spanish, proving his fluency in the language and further appealing to minority voters–something not seen from his Republican competition. It’s no surprise that the Hispanic showing at Monday’s event was paramount. Many of the official campaign signs seen in the crowd portrayed an upside down exclamation mark preceding the letter J in Jeb (a grammar reference in the Spanish language) which is once again a very strong indication of just how much Hispanic support was concentrated inside the mid-sized auditorium on Monday evening.

Whether Jeb is the ideal candidate for the presidency or not is yet to be seen. However one thing is certain–Jeb is a political genius when it comes to campaigning. Whether it be distancing himself from the family name, addressing the immigration issue in a positive manner, or even the smaller things such as his campaign choice and location preference, Jeb Bush is carefully planning an elaborate campaign which will make for a very interesting race.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Four Ways Jeb Bush Is Setting Himself Apart From the Republican Competition appeared first on Law Street.

Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he is running for president as a Democrat in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week. Sanders, an Independent Senator from Vermont and a self-identified “democratic-socialist,” will seek to represent the left-leaning side of the Democratic Party. While many view his bid for the Democratic nomination as a long shot, he presents the party’s first challenge to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s campaign has garnered a significant amount of attention in the media and from her Republican challengers, indeed many headlines this week focused on her speech on criminal justice rather than on Sanders’ campaign announcement. However, having a serious challenger to Clinton in the Democratic primary is something that many party members support. A recent Bloomberg poll found that 72 percent of self identifying Democrats and independents think a primary challenger is good for the Democratic Party. While many may question Sanders’ ability to become a significant opponent to Clinton, he has repeatedly said he is “in it to win.”

Describing yourself as a socialist generally does not bode well in American politics, but many of Sanders’ core issues tend to resonate well with populists in the Democratic Party. Sanders is an outspoken critic of Wall Street and identifies economic inequality as one of the most important issues facing the United States. In his interview with the AP, Sanders said, “What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels.”

His opposition to Wall Street and what he calls the “billionaire class” also extends to his desire for campaign finance reform. Sanders actively supports a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and move toward a public-funding system.

Sanders also has strong appeal among environmentalists as someone who recently voted against the Keystone XL Pipeline, and cosponsored a Senate resolution to acknowledge that climate change exists and is a result of human activity. He has also sponsored legislation that would call for a carbon tax and is a strong proponent of alternative energy. He has a 95 percent rating on the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, which evaluates congressional members’ voting records on environmental issues.

As a self-identified socialist, Sanders stands politically to the left of Clinton and many establishment Democrats. He supports expanding medicare to develop a single-payer system for all Americans and has opposed several free trade agreements. He has vocally expressed his opposition to Trans-Pacific Partnership as well as giving the president fast-track authority to pass it without amendments from Congress. Although he supported President Obama’s executive action on immigration, which protects nearly five million illegal immigrants from deportation, he has also said that guest workers may lead to greater unemployment of American low-wage workers.

On some issues, however, Sanders’ positions are in line with a large portion of Americans, particularly those within the Democratic Party. Sanders voted against the Iraq war, which Clinton initially voted for and later came to hurt her 2008 presidential bid. He is also a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage, an issue that has gained increasing public support and currently has a landmark case in front of the Supreme Court.

While many believe that Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic Party’s nomination is a foregone conclusion, Sanders has shown that he intends to do more than force Clinton to discuss the issues that are important to left-leaning Democrats. That said, he is considerably behind in early polling numbers, campaign organization, and fundraising, which will all present important challenges as he tries to become a legitimate challenger. The 73 year old from Brooklyn says that he can appeal to a wide audience because of his role as the longest-serving Independent Senator in American history.

Sanders says, “I’ve run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country.”

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 Independent Senator Bernie Sanders Running For President as Democrat 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.

Hey y’all!

As most of you know, I hail from the great state of Texas! I wasn’t born here but my parents made sure I got here as fast as possible. I’ve been here long enough to experience both governors George W. Bush and Rick Perry, two men I have a great amount of respect for.

I was flabbergasted the moment I read that Governor Rick Perry is being indicted for alleged abuse of power in a veto dispute. First, I must have been hiding under a rock for a few weeks because I had no idea that they were even considering indicting Governor Perry. But let’s be really honest, someone is always trying to sue or indict a lawmaker, even the President. We do live in a world of frivolous lawsuits so I really shouldn’t be surprised.

Let’s jump in to the most ridiculous of the ridiculous: The person who made the decision to convene a grand jury to indict Governor Perry is Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. The same woman who was arrested for drunk driving. No one is above the law, but she clearly thought she was. The cops even had to put a spit guard on her and strap her to a chair. What does that say about her decisionmaking skills? I find her almost as laughable as the crack-smoking Toronto Mayor.

To make things even worse, after Lehmberg plead guilty to drunk driving, she refused to leave her position as District Attorney. How shocking, one poor choice on top of another. It puts the whole Perry indictment into question. Actually, for me it makes me question her whole career. Forget her political affiliation, consider the decisions she has made and think, how that one decision ruined her life, and think about how many other decisions that she has made that have had the same impact on others. You have to question her ability to reason — or at least I do.

An indictment would kill a presidential bid for most political careers of this magnitude, but it seems to be making Perry’s stronger. So many people have come out in support of him it is like a blessing of endorsements for the future run.

Part of what Perry is being indicted for is “misusing government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.” Perry threatened to veto funding for the state’s public integrity unit last summer. This veto threat is more specifically about $7.5 million in funding for the state’s public integrity unit, the ethics watchdog unit housed under Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg’s office.

I think that this whole thing is a game of cat and mouse. It also seems to me that today’s government officials are more stubborn and selfish than ever. What about that is good for the people? Rosemary Lehmberg is a joke and has turned the Travis County District Office into a joke as well. Governor Perry may not be perfect but at least he knows how to conduct himself in a manner that doesn’t lead to a spit mask, being arrested, putting people’s lives at risk, and being strapped to a chair.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote a really great piece about the Rick Perry indictment with a bit different point of view that you should check out!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Rick Perry Indictment is a Joke appeared first on Law Street.

I really like horror movies. And FX’s American Horror Story is a weekly ritual for myself and my roommates. There’s something about being scared through the dim glow of a screen that’s refreshing: you get to be glad that you aren’t actually experiencing the horror. And so today I decided to experience a different kind of horror…I googled potential 2016 presidential nominees barely a year after our last, extremely exhausting election.

This was me.

Everyone knows who the frontrunners are–Hillary Clinton in blue, and Chris Christie in red. There’s a whole big cast of characters as potential backups–Vice President Biden, Martin O’Malley, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, the list goes on and on. But for the sake of fun, let’s take a look at some of the weird shout-outs I came across, on both sides, for potential 2016 nominees. Fair warning: this list will range from actual politicians who may have a shot, to bonafide crazy people.

Oh wait, isn’t that the same thing?

5. Delaware AG Beau Biden

Beau Biden, courtesy of studio08denver via Flickr.

I expected to see Joe’s name on pretty much any presidential nominee list. I was not expecting a second Biden–the 44 year old Attorney General of Delaware. Beau is young, attractive, has a military background, and is overall a very attractive candidate for national politics. If his father doesn’t run, he could be a contender. But is he ready? And do Democrats want to start yet another political dynasty, à la Clintons? After all, they’ve seen how well that’s worked for the Republican party–Republicans haven’t won a presidential election without a Bush on the ticket since 1981. Finally, and believe me, this is the most important question, is it possible for any Biden to be cooler than Joe?

 Perfection

  4. Rep Peter King (R-NY)

Peter King, courtesy of United States Congress via Wikipedia.

Pete King (R-NY) has actually already declared that he will be running for President in 2016. King has a pretty long history of crazy statements that render him a scary potential 2016 pick. Let’s start with his claim that he’s kind of a fan of torture, or at the very least, coercive interrogations (which a former Republican nominee, John McCain, has rallied against for years.) He also used to be a supporter of the Irish Republican Army, a known terrorist group. He  has an extraordinary history of making offensive comments towards Muslims. In 2007, he claimed that, “that 85% of all mosques in the U.S. are controlled by ‘extremist leadership.'” He has stated that Muslim-Americans aren’t actually American. Immediately after the Boston Marathon bombing, he made a statement to the effect that we need to watch and put surveillance on all American Muslim communities.

Oh, Pete King, could you be more offensive? Please don’t try.

Pete King actually routinely slams the tea party, but still gets on this list for being a weird, creepy, hypocrite who I would really not like to see given a national platform.

3. Mayor Michael Bloomberg

MIchael Bloomberg, courtesy of Be the Change, Inc via Flickr.

Bloomberg has just finished up his last term as New York City mayor. His history is interesting; at various points in his life he has been a Democrat, a Republican, and now an Independent. While looking up 2016 speculation, I found both Democratic and Republican speculation–and in such a hostile partisan climate, it is extremely difficult to imagine that overlap. There has been speculation that Bloomberg would run in 2008 and 2012. Bloomberg wouldn’t be so much a horrifying pick as much as he would be a fascinating one. Socially speaking, he’s liberal, but fiscally conservative. Running a city like New York is very different than running an entire country, and some of the policies that he has instituted have been dramatically unpopular–everyone remember the soda ban? Any run, for any party, would be very interesting.

Most New Yorkers’ reaction to the soda ban.

2. Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL)

Allen West, courtesy of Mark Taylor via Flickr.

Tea party darling and former Florida representative, Allen West, or as I like to call him, complete nut job. He is more likely to run for Rubio’s senate seat, whether Rubio is there or not, but according to speculators Presidential run isn’t completely out of the ballpark. I don’t have room on this list to enumerate all the ways in which Allen West is off his rocker, but here are a couple highlights:

• One time when he said Joseph Goebbels, one of Hitler’s right hand men, would be proud of Democrats.
• Anyone who supports Obama is a threat to the gene pool.
• Liberal women, “have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness —[we need] to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient.”
• He claimed well respected news outlet Al Jazeera tried to kidnap him.

Shall we all say it together?

1. Ted Nugent

Ted Nugent has said that people are asking him to run and that he’s considering it. In a Washington Post profile he said, “Things are just so wrong in the country now. And I know that my answers would make things wonderful, unless you just refuse to produce, and then I’d recommend that you move to Canada. Or Illinois.” Oh thanks, Ted, I forgot Illinois wasn’t a part of the US. I think we should have a new rule: if you have been investigated by the Secret Service for threatening a current President, you shouldn’t be able to run for that same office. Before the 2012 election, he claimed that “he would be dead or in jail” this time next week if Obama won reelection. Yet, people still want him to run for President–this “Ted Nugent for President” Facebook page has over 246,000 likes.

Ted Nugent? NO!

Well friends, no matter what, we’re in for an exciting ride in 2016. But, can we please not talk about it for real for at least another year?

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Theresa Thompson via Flickr]

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 5 Surprising, Unexpected, & Horrifying Presidential Picks for 2016 appeared first on Law Street.