Just a few years ago, it seemed like you couldn’t watch a sporting event without seeing advertisements for daily fantasy sports leagues like Draft Kings or Fan Duel. Before the 2015 NFL season these companies spent nearly $500 million on advertisements, but after consumer concerns arose, they cut their advertising budgets.

After multiple lawsuits against the industry, the companies are fighting for their existence amid accusations that they fall under the same legal category as traditional online gambling.

A new study from Rutgers University on gambling in New Jersey concludes that daily fantasy sports (DFS) users exhibit highly similar habits as those who engage in traditional forms of gambling. It also finds that there is a high crossover between the two activities. This is bad news for an industry that has tried to distance itself from gambling in order to win lawsuits and continue operation. The study’s authors wrote:

A majority of activities listed in this study are historically classified and widely accepted as ‘gambling,’ because they involve spending money on activities with an uncertain outcome and the possibility of winning or losing that can result in harm. However, other activities elude precise classification and are largely context and jurisdiction‐dependent.

The key distinction for these companies is whether their games are based on skill, not chance. This stems from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed by Congress in 2006, which makes a distinction between the two forms of gambling and outlawed only games that require no skill.

Fan Duel, which opened in 2009, was the first major daily fantasy sports company before Draft Kings, its main competitor, opened in 2011. First, they experienced massive growth and profits before running into legal problems.

To learn more about daily fantasy sports check out Law Street’s Explainer.

These companies, and their users, must prove to the courts that they are winning massive amounts because of skill and hard work, not pure luck like traditional gambling games.

Those who argue that DFS is skill-based believe it’s clear the games aren’t random because of the overwhelming success of experienced players. While normal gambling games such as roulette or slots don’t favor someone with experience, these games show that the most winners have dedicated themselves to the craft.

While many users casually play the games, others have dedicated themselves to the game, and some manage to earn six-figure payouts in just one month.

In fact, 1 percent of players win around 91 percent of the profits from DFS  sites, according to a study by gambling expert Ed Miller. Miller argues this is evidence of a surplus of skill exhibited by the top bettors, whom he refers to as “sharks,” who feast on the “minnows,” which are novice gamblers who lose over 50 percent of their investments.

On the other hand, those who argue the game is just gambling cite evidence that knowledge of the actual sports doesn’t help win the game. Instead, it’s just about algorithms, gaming the system, and luck, they argue.

Even former Florida governor and presidential candidate Jeb Bush called it, “day trading without any of the regulation” during one debate in the 2016 campaign. The lack of oversight is yet another reason many hope for government intervention in the industry.

In recent years, the industry has faced lawsuits across America while states such as Nevada and New York barred them and defined them as gambling. In 2015 both states booted daily fantasy sports companies from their states.

But in late 2016, New York and Nevada compromised with the companies.

New York’s ban was particularly impactful because the Fan Duel headquarters is located in the Big Apple. However, Governor Andrew Cuomo later signed a law in classifying DFS as a “game of skill,” which allowed them to continue business in the state.

Meanwhile, Nevada decided that the companies need a gambling license to operate, but only one company–USFantasy–has applied and received a license as of last November, according to the Legal Sports Report. The policy means that daily fantasy sports is considered gambling in the state, allowing DFS companies to operate under the same regulation as traditional gambling. However, given the industry’s efforts to identify itself as a game of skill, many DFS companies have been unwilling to participate with a gambling classification.

In Texas, state Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion last year equating DFS with illegal gambling, which prompted lawmakers to craft a bill formally classifying DFS as games of skill. State Rep. Richard Peña Raymond, a fantasy football lover himself, decided to sign onto the bill after speaking with constituents who worried about government interference, he told the Texas Tribune.

So while the Rutgers study finds that DFS users also tend to engage in traditional gambling–and are susceptible to similar gambling and drug-related problems–many states are working with these companies to continue operation.

The new study doesn’t necessarily mean that legal changes are coming down the road, but it furthers research that will help inform future decisions. The legality of DFS is a complex issue that must weigh the economic benefits of gambling for local taxes and the negative impact that it can have on individuals and their families.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Daily Fantasy Sports a Form of Online Gambling? appeared first on Law Street.

If you haven’t gotten your Halloween costume together yet and you’re not interested in blending in with a sea of people dressed as “Suicide Squad’s” Harley Quinn or Pennywise-inspired killer clowns, don’t worry, we’re here to help. We’ve gotten enough inspiration from this presidential election circus cycle to get your DIY creative juices flowing. Here are the top ten Halloween costumes for the presidential election-obsessed!

1. Nasty Woman

Katy Perry, in ‘nasty woman’ tee, drives Vegas students to the polls https://t.co/X4w8PHpjVR pic.twitter.com/Fb12FFToCy

— People Magazine (@people) October 24, 2016

When Donald Trump interrupted Hillary Clinton during the third and final debate to call her “such a nasty woman,” he probably had no idea that pissed off women everywhere would  reclaim the phrase as a Hillary rallying cry. You can join hordes of fellow “nasties” this Halloween with the simple tee donned by singer Katy Perry, seen above. Top it off with this “Make America Nasty Again” red cap, turn on Janet Jackson’s 1986 hit “Nasty,” and you’ll be ready to hiss at any misogynists you see on All Hallow’s Eve.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Halloween Costumes for People Obsessed with the Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

Normally, eminent domain does not get a lot of discussion in presidential politics. In fact, outside of a relatively small circle of interested parties and intellectuals, it doesn’t get much discussion at all. The last time it got this much attention was a decade ago in the case of “Kelo v. City of New London” where the concept of eminent domain and the Takings Clause got to experience their moment in the sun.

The rise of Donald Trump as the probable if not presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency has brought this issue into the spotlight once again. Generally speaking, conservatives tend to be critical of the concept of eminent domain but Trump has professed the viewpoint that without eminent domain civic projects that we value would be impossible to complete.

But what exactly IS eminent domain? And the more interesting question: what should it include?

Pleading The Fifth: The Takings Clause

Eminent domain is basically the idea that the government can, in a specific set of circumstances, take your property.  The Takings Clause, which is a part of the Fifth Amendment that rarely gets invoked in movies or television prohibits the government from taking property unless certain criteria are met. The clause reads, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” which is not a purely semantic distinction. Even those who support eminent domain would acknowledge that it is a violation of your property rights.

Land use law spends a good chunk of time on the Takings Clause, going through each of these elements. Over the years, the Supreme Court has had to define what private property is (while it seems simple enough, does it include the airspace above your house?), when it has actually been taken (in honor of the late Justice Scalia Google “regulatory takings” and “Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council”), and what is a public use. This is where much of the discussion of eminent domain has focused on recently in the presidential debates. In the video below you can listen to Jeb Bush and Donald Trump discussing the issue of eminent domain in regards to Mr. Trump’s conservative credentials and real estate dealings.

It may take a minute to unpack some of the arguments that are going on in this clip. The first discussion is whether the concept of eminent domain, where the government may take someone’s land for public use, is a good thing. There’s also whether it is consistent with “conservative” principles. Mr. Trump uses the example of a hospital as a public use and states that it would be impossible to build things like hospitals without eminent domain.

That’s probably true. If the government did not have the power to seize property (both the federal government and state governments have this power) then any private citizen who owned property where the government wanted to build a hospital could either refuse to sell and thwart the project or hold out for such an exorbitant price that it would make any new project too expensive to be undertaken. While it certainly wouldn’t be an irrational reaction–who wouldn’t want to sell their home for 100 times what it is worth?–it wouldn’t be a very civic-minded response and ultimately we would have fewer hospitals.

Keep in mind that the government does not just take your house. If it takes your property it does pay you for it, so it isn’t all bad news. Collectively, we have decided that we are willing to have a few of us get forced to sell our property, as abhorrent as that is to the American psyche, in favor of having things like hospitals and roads.

The second argument comes on the tail of the first–once we have decided that for a public use we are going to allow this violation of our property rights–what is a public use?  Hospital, yes fine. But what about parking spaces for your limousine?

Economic Development: “Kelo v. City of New London“

Although neither one references it, Governor Bush and Mr. Trump are having what I presume is a more spirited version of the in camera arguments that the Supreme Court had in “Kelo v. City of New London.” Things like hospitals, roads, and bridges are recognized by the majority of people to be public uses. But in the Kelo Case, the government was arguing that its plan to develop the land for the City of New London’s economic benefit was a public use. The government didn’t need to build an actual public structure, like a bridge, to be a public use, it just needed to be something that was benefitting the public as a whole.

The Supreme Court agreed with the city and ruled in its favor–an economic benefit to the public can be a public use.  And the government can take a piece of property (again, they do have to pay you something!) and then sell or contract with a developer, such as Mr. Trump, to build on the land.

Another dispute over eminent domain occurred in Lakewood, Ohio. As “60 Minutes” notes, the city of Lakewood wanted to take the Saleet family’s house in order to put in condos and a strip mall. While the Saleet family eventually won their dispute, allowing them to keep their home, the questions at the intersection of eminent domain and economic development remain difficult to answer.

This expansion of the understanding of what constitutes a public use has been met with opposition from people of various political stripes. One group, the Institute For Justice, which is a self-described libertarian public interest law firm, has been very active in pushing back against this understanding of “public use” believing that it is an infringement on property rights. In the video below the Institute for Justice explains some of the responses from state governments and individuals to the Kelo decision.

The Supreme Court in Kelo found the comprehensive nature of the city’s plan to develop the area to be a persuasive argument in favor of characterizing it as a public use. It wasn’t just building one hotel on the property and calling it a day, which may distinguish the issue in Kelo from other cases in the future where the government wants to get rid of a single “blighted” property in favor of a “better” economic option. This is what Governor Bush implies that Mr. Trump tried to do. But, in fact, they are having two separate arguments.

Mr. Trump’s attempt to buy property has nothing to do with eminent domain and linking his attempt to get someone to sell him their home so that he can expand on his existing property or build a new one mischaracterizes what eminent domain is. Eminent domain is purely government action. Not action by private citizens. Mr. Trump isn’t using eminent domain when he makes an offer on a property so he can build a hotel. Even if he uses, as is alleged, strong-arm tactics against elderly widows. His actions aren’t a government curtailment of property rights but rather a use of his property rights–any and all elderly widows that he might try to buy land from have the right to refuse his offer if they want to. It is their property to sell or not sell as they see fit. So talking about Trump’s behavior doesn’t really make sense in a discussion about eminent domain and what is or should be legally acceptable for government action.

The real issue is whether the government should be able to forcibly purchase property to promote economic development. Governor Bush’s argument is that position is not consistent with “conservative” principles. In this case, the “conservative” principle being that when the property is privately owned, the government should have to jump through some hoops to get to it. One of those hoops is that the government needs to make a case for why this is a public use. For many, economic development, however noble that goal is, does not meet that burden. Economic development may be a good idea but it isn’t within the scope of what the government is allowed to violate your property rights to achieve.

Others would argue that government is in the business of promoting good ideas, or at least it should be. And taking an area that is economically “blighted” and turning it into a collection of homes or businesses that improve the community is a good use of the government’s time and energy. We can’t let holdouts, whether they are doing so because of an intense love for their particular house or for an incredibly generous pay-day, halt economic progress that would benefit everyone in the community. They argue that the government needs to be able to promote not just the structural necessities of public life (a road or a bridge) but also the broader concerns that affect the quality of life. After all, people probably claimed back in the day that a hospital wasn’t a public use either, since it isn’t a strictly necessary structure. Yet now a hospital would be generally accepted by all but the most dyed-in-the-wool libertarians as a fair use of eminent domain. This is just the modern evolution of the concept of public use.

Conclusion

Eminent domain is sort of like taxes. Nobody necessarily wants to pay them but we all know that we need taxes or there would be potholes everywhere–the government wouldn’t be able to do anything. Even if we think of taxes as state-sanctioned theft, we let it go because “taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.”

There is a sliding scale–from a bridge to a hospital to a strip mall–and most may go along with it to the hospital but no further. Economic development is great and should be encouraged. But allowing a forcible purchase of property by the government to promote positive development is a bell that you can’t un-ring. It may not be the most interesting issue to think about (and certainly it isn’t the most interesting issue where Mr. Trump is concerned) but eminent domain is government power with very real immediate and future consequences that warrant discussion.

Resources

Primary

FindLaw: Kelo v. New London

Additional

Washington State University At St. Louis: A Brief History of The Takings Clause

CBS News: Eminent Domain Being Abused

National Review: Kelo v. City of New London Ten Years Later

IRS.gov: Tax Quotes

Department of Justice: History of the Use of Federal Eminent Domain

Brown Political Review: “Public Needs” Abuse Eminent Domain for Economic Development

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Blighted: What Exactly Is Eminent Domain? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night’s sort-of second Super Tuesday led to even more of a mess for the GOP than I think anyone thought possible just a few months ago. As of last night, Marco Rubio has officially bowed out of the race. Donald Trump is certainly doing well, but he hasn’t quite locked up the nomination yet. And John Kasich’s win in his home state of Ohio means that he’s still holding on. Then, with the chance that there’s a brokered convention, literally anything could happen at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this summer. So…who’s still left in the race for the GOP nomination, and what’s next?

Donald Trump

Trump is, quite obviously, the man to beat. Trump is the only Republican candidate left in the race who has a realistic path to the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination before the convention–he currently has 646. While Kasich’s win in Ohio denied Trump 66 delegates, which certainly makes that path harder,  Trump is still in an enviable position.

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz is still in it, with 397 delegates. He’s positing himself as the only one who can beat Trump, and is seemingly trying to push Kasich out of the race to scoop some of those “absolutely never voting for Trump under any circumstances” voters. He’s also claiming that he’ll do well in closed-primary states that are coming up, where only pre-registered Republicans can vote. We’ll have to see if now that the field has narrowed a bit if Cruz can make good on those promises.

John Kasich

John Kasich somehow managed to stay alive last night by winning his home state, Ohio. However, Cruz and Trump are both promising that their delegate counts will keep him out of the convention. But Kasich may still see some room for himself at a contested convention. As Politico’s Kyle Cheney put it:

Kasich’s campaign foreshadowed its plans for a convention brawl late Tuesday, naming Stu Spencer and Charlie Black — two veterans of the last contested convention, the 1976 fight between President Gerald Ford and an insurgent Ronald Reagan — to his national strategy team.

Paul Ryan? Jeb! Bush?

With the prospect of a contested convention, there’s always the chance that another contender sneaks up through the side. In this case, all eyes would appear to be on current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Former Speaker John Boehner has stated:

If we get to the convention and we don’t have a nominee that can win on the first ballot, I’m for none of the above. They all ran, they all had a chance to win, none of them won, so I’m for none of the above.

Ryan himself doesn’t seem particularly in favor of the concept, but it sounds like he hasn’t totally ruled it out, either. He told CNBC:

You know, I haven’t given any thought to this stuff. People say, ‘What about the contested convention?’ I say, well, there are a lot of people running for president. We’ll see. Who knows?

Then there are people who say that Jeb! Bush could make a comeback at a convention, at least according to Rush Limbaugh.

The Ghost of Ronald Reagan?

Honestly, at this point, it may be one of the more plausible and palatable options.

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 Who Could Still End Up with the GOP Nomination? 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.

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

“You might swing my vote”

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

Sean Simon

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

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

Presidential campaigns don’t come cheap. While superPACs help funnel donations in the millions from the elite class, candidates prefer to brag about the amount of small donations they’ve received. But Americans are savvy consumers, and are rarely content to give away their money for nothing. This leads to perhaps the most niche market of all: Campaign Merchandise. Much like the booths at a Beyoncé concert, these online shops peddle fun tchotchkes emblazoned with the candidate’s name and face, at hyper-inflated prices.

Consider purchasing a faux-embroidered throw pillow from Hillary’s camp to give your home a dowdy yet socially-conscious touch. Perhaps you’d be more interested in a “Grillary Clinton Spatula” for a burger flip that’s sure to break the glass ceiling. No? Not even a “Chillary Clinton” drink koozie? You’re probably just not jumping on these offers because you can’t decide, so why not go for a Hillary Clinton Shop gift card and pick out your favorite later?

Hillary’s store is a perfect example of the general silliness of the campaign merchandise world, but there are select other examples that almost seem like parody. Jeb Bush, for example, has tried many methods to connect with Hispanic voters, but he may have found the clincher with his $75 “Guaca Bowle.” This item is included in the “Lifestyle” section of his shop, for the consumer who wants to better emulate the Jeb Bush lifestyle.

jeb bush is funding his campaign by selling guacamole bowls……#guacabowle pic.twitter.com/G4UiTESKpj

— lil minkus chellygal (@chelleygal2) September 24, 2015

Be sure to also check out his “Vintage Tank,” which shows a young John Ellis with “a sideburn-mustache combo that would make Burt Reynolds blush.”

Trump’s store is more of a one-note operation, as his “Make America Great Again” hats are among his campaign’s largest expenditures.

Donald Trump blew $450,000 on red hats – made by Latinos #IowaCaucus https://t.co/wpsItFFUtl pic.twitter.com/iCoGPACjT4

— Independent US (@IndyUSA) February 1, 2016

The award for the most insane store might just be Dr. Rand Paul’s. His campaign is now suspended and his shop’s webpage now says “EVEN THE NSA COULDN’T FIND THAT PAGE.” But before he bowed out of the race, Paul had a “fun stuff” section in his shop, where you can buy a $1,000 autographed constitution, as well as a giant (meaning several feet large) birthday card, something called “Rand on a Stick,” an NSA spy cam blocker for your laptop, flip flops, and a “Don’t Drone Me Bro” t-shirt, cementing Rand Paul as the candidate most hip to the ways of the youth. I would link to these, but these soon-to-be-collectibles may need to be hunted down on eBay now that they’re truly “limited edition.”

As for Bernie Sanders, his store is one of the most reserved, filled mostly with cups and shirts with “Bernie” and “Feel the Bern.” The only stand-out product is a “Babies for Bernie” bib, which proves yet again that Bernie polls well with the under-20 crowd.

Ted Cruz rounds out the list with a terrifying image: a photoshopped poster of him shirtless and tattooed:

Errrrmagod!

Shirtless Ted Cruz poster for $50 on his website. #Merica https://t.co/GknvtvYEL6pic.twitter.com/lsx2uiXCi7 — marija bekafigo (@drbekafigo) September 10, 2015

So peruse the options available to you, and pick your favorite candidates’ merch. Plaster their name on your wall, across your forehead, or on your chest, for a “made-in-America” exorbitant cost.

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 Strange World of Campaign Merchandise: Who has the Best Swag? appeared first on Law Street.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has officially announced that he won’t be participating in the Republican Debate tomorrow, due to his (totally not sexist and unreasonable) dislike for moderator Megyn Kelly. Trump’s decision has been confirmed by both his campaign, as well as Fox News. So, given that the big-mouthed millionaire has been dominating the debates thus far, who will step up to fill the vacuum?

Trump not being present for the debate may change the overall flavor of the night by quite a bit. It certainly could have an impact on disappointing not-so-prodigal son Governor Jeb Bush, who has had many of his most memorable and heated campaign moments while taking jabs at Trump. It also could affect Senator Marco Rubio, who is currently coming in third in most polls, and has been pretty critical of Trump in past debates.

But, it seems like most eyes will be on Senator Ted Cruz, who has been coming in second to Trump in most of the recent polls, although those second place results have been by quite a wide margin. In national polls, including CNN/ORC, Fox News, NBC News, and other leading news outlets, Trump has seen a lead over Cruz that ranges from about 13 percent to 22 percent. However, in Iowa, which will be the first state to caucus next Monday, Trump holds a far slimmer lead–ranging from about 2-11 percent. In New Hampshire–the second primary–the gap between Trump and Cruz looks only slightly smaller than national results. Given that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are so soon, this may Cruz’s last chance to make up some of that ground.

However, Cruz’s success will depend on whether or not he also shows up tomorrow night. He has now challenged Trump to their own, one-on-one debate. However, it could be a mistake for Cruz to sit this one out, given that everyone will be looking to him to see how he handles a Trump-less stage.

So, Law Street readers, what do you think? Will Cruz dominate tomorrow night’s debate? Or will it be a missed opportunity for the man currently in second in most GOP polls?

Cast your vote in the poll below:

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 With Trump Out of the Debate, Who Will Dominate? 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.

First, Donald Trump wanted to ban Mexicans. “Build a wall” he said, and make the Mexican government pay for it. And despite the long list of inherent problems with said plan, a large number of people rejoiced at this supposed fix for America’s “immigration problem.”

Now, Trump has moved on from just banning nationalities and has opted for religions as well. On Monday, the current leader in the race for the Republican presidential nomination voiced that he would call for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” until we can “figure out what’s going on.” That’s right folks, all Muslims. 

Watch Trump’s Comments Below

These seemingly unconstitutional comments marked a swift change from Trump’s usual anti-Muslim rhetoric, quickly distancing the mogul from his GOP counterparts. Now politicians, celebrities, and entire countries are coming out in droves to denounce Trump’s statements and even ban him from certain parts of the globe.

People for Banning Trump

Several American mayors have begun voicing the desire to ban Trump from entering their respective cities–despite having no legal power to actually do so. St. Petersburg, Florida’s Mayor Rick Kriseman announced the decree on Twitter and Sunnyvale, California’s Mayor Jim Griffith quickly followed suit. Kriseman told NBC News on Tuesday that he felt Trump’s statement deserved an equally “ridiculous” response.

I am hereby barring Donald Trump from entering St. Petersburg until we fully understand the dangerous threat posed by all Trumps.

— Rick Kriseman (@Kriseman) December 8, 2015

Ya know, I think Mayor Kriseman is on to something here… https://t.co/txdhBwBlFS — Mayor Jim Griffith (@JimGriffith_SV) December 8, 2015

It’s not just Americans hoping to ban Trump. As of this afternoon, a petition to prohibit Trump from entering the UK has reached 200,000 signatures and is climbing. The petition first went up on Parliament’s website Tuesday, and only needed 100,000 signatures in order to be automatically considered for debate in Parliament.

The GOP Takes a Stand

Many in the Republican Party wasted no time informing the public that Trump’s statement was not indicative of the party as whole. Speaker Paul Ryan was praised after holding a press conference where he simply stated “this is not conservatism.” Fellow presidential hopefuls Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich also called the proposal “unhinged,” “offensive,” and “outrageous” on social media.

Donald Trump is unhinged. His “policy” proposals are not serious.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) December 7, 2015

I disagree with Donald Trump’s latest proposal. His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 8, 2015

pic.twitter.com/noMfFeL3vq

— John Kasich (@JohnKasich) December 7, 2015

Emotional Response

New York Daily News took a more emotionally charged stance on the offensive proposal in the form of a political cartoon comparing Trump to Hitler on Wednesday’s cover. The cartoon was modeled after Pastor Martin Niemöller famous poem, “First They Came,” and drew similarities to Nazi Germany.

Today’s @NYDailyNews cover accompanied by an emotional guest column about @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Ue4IXx97gr pic.twitter.com/X9xLdSlaYG — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) December 9, 2015

The Downright Hilarious

However, J.K. Rowling proved she is the master of all things Twitter yet again, with one single tweet that perfectly captured what everyone else was thinking.

How horrible. Voldemort was nowhere near as bad. https://t.co/hFO0XmOpPH — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) December 8, 2015

Even though politicians, countries, and celebrities are strongly against Trump becoming the next president of the United States, a large portion of America still seems to love him. It appears that the more outrageous the statement, the better Trump polls, and his ability to capture the approval of non-traditional voters has proved he’s more than just a sideshow, he’s an actual contender. But will people finally say “enough is enough” when Trump starts condemning more nationalities, ethnic groups, and religions?

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Reactions to Trump’s Idiotic Plan to Block Muslims From Entering U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was yet another installment of the GOP circus–also known as a Republican primary debate. Hosted by Fox Business, the debate was supposed to be focused on economic issues, with a bit of domestic and international policy thrown in. This debate field was smaller than the last three–Governors Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie were moved down to the kiddie stage. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t still plenty of crazy to go around–check out the top seven funniest, strangest, and most memorable moments from the 4th GOP debate below:

Is China Part of the TPP?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP, has been a hot topic in the political sphere as of late. Check out Law Street’s explainer on it here, if you’re not caught up. Last night at one point, the discussion on stage devolved into a talk about the TPP, and Trump went on a nice ramble about how the deal is “designed for China to come in as they always do through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone.” Senator Rand Paul was quick to interject, pointing out that China isn’t part of the deal. It was an embarrassing moment for Trump, to be sure.

Everyone Was Kind of Mean to Philosophers

Last night, “philosophers” became a weirdly maligned group of people. It started when Marco Rubio talked about a need to destigmatize  trade education, arguing that “welders make more money than philosophers.” Then, Ted Cruz called the Fed “philosopher kings.” Then, John Kasich, when talking about economic concerns, stated: “philosophy doesn’t work when you run something.”

I’m not sure why everyone was being so mean about philosophy, but it’s worth noting that Carly Fiorina was a philosophy major.

Kasich Gets a Little too Excited about our Friendship with Jordan

John Kasich got a little too into the King of Jordan last night, when he stated: “Jordan, we want the king to reign for 1,000 years.” While he might have just been being a little hyperbolic, it seems pretty extreme. I don’t know that we should be wishing immortality on any other country’s leader.

Literally No One Paid Attention to the Bell

Fox Business’s poor “time is up” bell-ringer was the least respected person on stage last night. The bell was constantly rung to signal “time is over” and every candidate completely ignored it. While that meant that the candidates had a more open discourse than the previous debate, it was still pretty pathetic that no one even tried to stay within their allotted time.

The World’s Biggest Over-Simplification of Israeli-Palestinian Relations

We need someone who knows diplomacy, not name-calling & green rooms #DonaldTrump #RepublicanDebate #GOPDebate #Putin pic.twitter.com/yrjPcyPojp

— Law Street (@LawStreetMedia) November 11, 2015

When talking about a desire to build a wall on the American-Mexico border, Trump brought up the wall between Israel and Palestine on the West Bank. This is an incredibly controversial project, which was at one point ruled to have violated international law, so maybe not something that a presidential candidate wants to compare their future strategy to.

Jeb Bush Thanks Trump for Letting him Talk

Jeb! proved he can’t “fix” his debate performances last night, all epitomized by a fantastically awkward moment in which he thanked Trump for letting him talk. After a messy back-and-forth involve Kasich, Bush stated: “Thank you, Donald, for allowing me to speak at the debate. That’s really nice of you. Really appreciate that.” Jeb, unfortunately, total passive-aggression isn’t going to help with your quickly falling poll numbers.

The Department of Commerce: So Bad, We’ll Get Rid of it Twice

If you’re from Texas and decide to run for President, never try to explain what departments you’d cut during the debate, because y’all are 0/2 in recent years. When talking about his tax plan, Ted Cruz stated:

$500 billion in specific cuts — five major agencies that I would eliminate. The IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and HUD — and then 25 specific programs.

That’s right, he mentioned the Department of Commerce twice. While it was less noticeable and embarrassing than Rick Perry’s “oops” moment back in 2012, it would have been nice if he could have really told us what five agencies he wants to eliminate.

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 Seven Most Memorable Moments from the 4th GOP Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Jeb Bush was once viewed as a serious potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination. But his campaign has languished in recent months, especially after some truly lackluster debate performances. So, today, Bush launched a revamp, with a new slogan “Jeb can fix it.” But will it work, or is Bush’s campaign already as good as dead?

There have been a lot of signs lately that Bush’s campaign isn’t doing well. Polls aren’t looking too good for Bush–a recent NBC poll last week had him at 5 percent nationally, behind Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. In Florida, his home state, he comes in at 4th, according to a ViewPoint Florida poll.

On the organizational front, Bush also isn’t doing so hot. Last week, the news broke that Bush’s campaign was slashing its budget across the board due to money struggles. The campaign is removing senior staff from the payroll and downsizing office space. Overall, the campaign is attempting to cut payroll by 40 percent and the overall budget (with some exceptions) by 45 percent. Combine these polling and payroll issues with the fact that Bush had yet another less-than-stellar performance at the most recent debate, and he’s not looking so good.

It’s in this context that Bush’s team is attempting to revamp his campaign strategy. In a press conference today he spoke about his new vision. Bush explained that the advice he’s gotten from critics ranges from the aesthetic, such ditching his glasses, to the strategic, such as being more passionate. But, as Bush stated:

But I have learned two important things from my time serving the people of Florida: One, I can’t be someone I’m not. And, two, getting things done isn’t about yelling into a camera, or regurgitating sound bites free of substance.

His speech also included some pretty unsubtle references to two of the candidates polling ahead of him–Donald Trump and fellow Floridian Marco Rubio. Clearly talking about Trump, he stated that you can’t just tell Congress they’re fired and then go to commercial break. In a more veiled reference seemingly to the language Rubio has been using in his campaign,  Bush stated:

The challenges we face as a nation are too great to roll the dice on another presidential experiment. To trust the rhetoric of reform over a record of reform.

Bush also unveiled the new theme of his campaign: “Jeb can fix it.” However, as often happens on the internet, there have already been plenty of riffs about the new slogan.

♪♫ Jeb the Builder ♪♫ ♪♫ Can he fix it? ♪♫ ♪♫ Jeb the Builder ♪♫ ♪♫♪♫ No ♪♫♪♫ #JebCanFixIt pic.twitter.com/UDnBK312sp

— Ponta [¬º-°]¬ (@typicalfeminist) November 2, 2015

The “it” in “Jeb can fix it” apparently does not refer to campaign slogans. — Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) November 2, 2015

Oh Lord. This is just pathetic & sad now. ‘Jeb Can Fix It’ sounds like a book for preschoolers. Feeling second hand embarrassment #facepalm

— jennifer (@jenilynn1001) November 2, 2015

Jeb Can Fix It. pic.twitter.com/rTuSWMa7dN — Jeff Tiedrich (@jefftiedrich) November 2, 2015

So with this revamp, Bush has gotten a little bit of extra attention–although not necessarily the kind of attention he wants. We’ll have to see if Bush can “fix” his campaign, but if things keep heading the same direction for him poll-wise, and cash-wise, it’s looking unlikely. 

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 Can Jeb Actually Fix it?: Bush Looks to Revamp His Struggling Campaign 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.

For Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, this 2016 primary has been marked by a lot of animosity. But they appeared to take that feud to a whole new level today, as they sparred back and forth on Twitter over George W. Bush’s 9/11 record.

This particular period of the Trump-Bush feud began when Trump was asked by Bloomberg about how he would deal with being President in the face of a crisis, such as a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack like 9/11. Trump criticized the leaders who have presided during past American crises, by saying:

I think I have a bigger heart than all of them. I think I’m much more competent then all of them. I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time.

He then continued to condemn Bush by saying: “He was president, O.K.? The World Trade Center came down during his reign.”

The fact that Trump essentially blamed the events of 9/11 on George W. Bush sat very poorly with Jeb Bush–and the younger Bush and current presidential hopeful took to Twitter to confront Trump about it. He tweeted:

How pathetic for @realdonaldtrump to criticize the president for 9/11. We were attacked & my brother kept us safe.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) October 16, 2015

Trump, who’s pretty consistently willing to get into Twitter spats, responded in turn:

.@JebBush, At the debate you said your brother kept us safe- I wanted to be nice & did not mention the WTC came down during his watch, 9/11.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2015

No @JebBush, you’re pathetic for saying nothing happened during your brother’s term when the World Trade Center was attacked and came down.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2015

.@JebBush, like it or not, our country needs more energy and spirit than you can provide! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2015

That’s where the fight appeared to end–for now at least. Given the clear personal animosity between the two candidates, these issues will probably come up again. Trump has been a consistent critic of George W. Bush, and during the second GOP debate, brought up George W. Bush. He stated: “Your brother and your brother’s administration gave us Barack Obama because it was such a disaster those last three months.” Bush responded: “You know what? As it relates to my brother, there is one thing I know for sure, he kept us safe.” Seemingly that is the line Trump was referring to in the first tweet.

The fight itself was just one of many political spats in the long and drawn-out primary. But the fact that it unfolded the way they did–on Twitter–provides an example of a new kind of political discourse that is increasingly defining the 2016 elections. It’s across party lines, as well–this summer, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush got into a Twitter/Photoshop war over student debt. Debate is no longer just confined to the stage.

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 Feud of the Week: Donald Trump and Jeb Bush Argue over 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter went crazy during last night’s Democratic debate, as everyone had something to say about the candidates and their plans for the country. In fact, many Republican candidates felt compelled to respond to what their Democratic counterparts were saying on stage. Mike Huckabee and Lindsey Grahm even live-tweeted their comments as the debate unfolded. By the end of the night, most of the Republican candidates got their fair share of jabs in on the Democrats, particularly when it came to Hillary Clinton.

Here’s a quick roundup of the most interesting tweets from Republicans:

Jeb Bush calls out Hillary Clinton on the Keystone pipeline:

“I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone.” – @HillaryClinton What? https://t.co/jWvvTyGnXU

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) October 14, 2015

Everyone’s favorite criticism of Hillary Clinton is that she’s a woman whose every move has a political motivation behind it. When she brought up her opposition to the Keystone pipeline, which she announced recently despite an ongoing debate between Democrats and Republicans, her critics seized the opportunity to call her out for playing politics.

Donald Trump

The most popular 2016 Twitter user also got his fair share of comments in last night. Donald Trump started off by pointing out Martin O’Malley’s difficult record in Maryland, particularly in the case of Baltimore.

O’Malley, as former Mayor of Baltimore, has very little chance. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2015

He also made some more general comments about the participants, highlighting the polling gaps between the candidates–and we all know Trump loves to talk about poll results.

All are very scripted and rehearsed, two (at least) should not be on the stage. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2015

This one is pretty clearly a shot at Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee, whose polling averages are below one percent nationally.

Bobby Jindal also chimed in after Anderson Cooper asked Bernie Sanders about his identity as a “Democratic Socialist.”

Democrats are debating whether capitalism is a good thing. Naturally. #DemDebate — Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) October 14, 2015

Mike Huckabee had several things to say throughout the debate–he had a couple bad and off-color jokes:

.@BernieSander‘s socialist math is as solid and sound as El Chapo’s prison security. #DemDebate — Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) October 14, 2015

I trust @BernieSanders with my tax dollars like I trust a North Korean chef with my labrador! #DemDebate — Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) October 14, 2015

But later it got even weirder:

Racism exists because we have a sin problem in America, not a skin problem. #DemDebate

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) October 14, 2015

And finally, Lindsey Grahm just gave up:

Can’t take it any longer. Wouldn’t make Gitmo detainees watch all of this. Good luck @TheDemocrats, you’re going to need it. #DemDebate — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 14, 2015

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Best Republican Tweets From the Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

The number one story from last week took an in depth look at the ten safest cities in the United States. Number two, by Law Streeter Alexis Evans, counted down the five worst Republican responses to the Umpqua Community College shooting. Finally, post number three highlighted an innovative criminal justice clinic at Lewis & Clark Law School. ICYMI, check out the top stories of the week.

#1 Crime in America 2016: Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000

The top three safest cities in the United States remained the same this year, with Irvine, California taking the number one spot, Gilbert, Arizona second on the list, and Fremont, California rounding out the top three. The top 10 also featured two cities that were not included on last year’s list–Irving, Texas and Chula Vista, California, at number #9 and #10, respectively. Click here to see the full list.

#2  Top 5 Worst Republican Responses to the Oregon Shooting

Last week’s horrific mass shooting that left nine dead at an Oregon community college exemplified escalating concerns over the state of gun safety in this nation. While for many it has sparked outcries for stricter gun control laws, others have responded to the deaths with a variety of excuses that aim to point the finger at the assailant rather than the flawed system. Republican primary candidates in particular have gone on the defensive post-Oregon, with a number of comments that at many times come across as dismissive, arrogant, and/or utterly ridiculous. Click here to read the full story.

#3 Lewis & Clark Law School’s New Criminal Justice Reform Clinic Fills Holes in the Criminal Justice System

Lewis & Clark Law School is now offering its students an innovative way to gain hands-on experience with criminal law. A new clinic called the Criminal Justice Reform Clinic is a collaboration between the law school and the Oregon Justice Resource Center (OJRC) and will benefit both law school students, and members of the community in need of legal resources. Click here to read the full story.

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.

Last week’s horrific mass shooting that left nine dead at an Oregon community college exemplified escalating concerns over the state of gun safety in this nation. While for many it has sparked outcries for stricter gun control laws, others have responded to the deaths with a variety of excuses that aim to point the finger at the assailant rather than the flawed system.

Republican primary candidates in particular have gone on the defensive post-Oregon, with a number of comments that at many times come across as dismissive, arrogant, and/or utterly ridiculous. So we’ve decided to compile a list of the top five worst Republican responses to the Oregon shooting and present them to you below. We ask that you prepare yourselves now for some head scratching reactions to these nonsensical comments made by contenders vying for the POTUS position.

5. Marco Rubio: “Gun Control Would Not Have Prevented That Attack”

During a “Today Show” interview Florida Senator Marco Rubio responded to Matt Lauer’s questions about the shooting saying, “Many of the proposals that are out there on gun control would not have prevented that attack.” He then said, “We need to start examining why people are taking violent action not what they’re using to commit the violent act with.”

Clearly Rubio’s tactic is to put all the focus on mental illness rather than the concerning accessibility of these firearms. But saying stricter gun laws would have had zero effect on this tragedy is just presumptuous and idiotic.

4. Bobby Jindal: Blames Shooting on Single Mothers

In a bulleted sermon that debuted on his personal website, Louisiana governor and ghost-like candidate Bobby Jindal attempted to make himself relevant by discussing the “cultural rot” he believes contributed to the shooting. However, Jindal’s most offensive critique came in a long-winded rant that insinuated single mothers’ inability to parent young boys is to blame for mass shootings. Jindal said:

And who is it that generally commits these evil acts of mass murder that are becoming routine? It’s almost always young men who have either no father figure in their lives, or a broken relationship with their father. Is this just a coincidence? Of course not.

Now, let’s get really politically incorrect here and talk specifically about this horror in Oregon. This killer’s father is now lecturing us on the need for gun control and he says he has no idea how or where his son got the guns.

Of course he doesn’t know. You know why he doesn’t know? Because he is not, and has never been in his son’s life. He’s a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public. He’s the problem here.

Sorry Jindal, but insinuating that one parent households are potential mass murder breeding camps isn’t going to win you any votes with the millions of single parents in the U.S.

3. Donald Trump: Armed Teachers Could Have Stopped the Oregon Shooting

We can always count on Donald Trump for his loquacious political theatrics, but him claiming that arming teachers is the solution to school shootings is just asinine. At a campaign event in Franklin, Tennessee, Trump criticized the fact that the school was a gun-free zone saying, “Let me tell you, if you had a couple teachers with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off.”

2. Ben Carson: “I Would Not Just Stand There and Let Him Shoot Me”

Dr. Ben Carson did Trump one better when he claimed that he could have stopped the shooter, Chris Harper-Mercer, had he been in the Snyder Hall classroom that day. Carson said, “I would not just stand there and let him shoot me.”He continued telling Fox News, “I would say: ‘Hey, guys, everybody attack him! He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.’”

Well at least you’ve got some pretty big kahunas, Carson.

1. Jeb Bush: “Stuff Happens”

Bush shrugged off the issue of gun control when he responded to the shooting saying, “stuff happens”, during a campaign event in Greenville, South Carolina. Bush’s full quote was, “Look, stuff happens. There’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something, and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.”

Point taken, but Jeb I’m pretty sure that the families of the victims wouldn’t appreciate you dismissing the death of their loved ones as “stuff happens.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Worst Republican Responses to the Oregon Shooting 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.

Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton take the battle online, Ted Cruz uses a War Games meme, and then there’s Donald Trump. Check out the slideshow below with some of the best campaign tweets of the week. For more election Twitter coverage, check out Law Street’s 2016 Voices.

Jeb Bush Calls Out the White House

For the first time in 54 years, the American flag flies above @USEmbCuba. #Cuba http://t.co/0O4X1m5bb8

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 14, 2015

Kevin Rizzo

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

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

Traditionally, other than poorly-veiled shots at press events, political opponents had to wait until debates in order to discuss the important issues directly. But that seems to be changing–social media tools make it way easier for candidates to directly interact with each other. Case in point, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and Republican contender Jeb Bush directly engaged in an argument via Twitter this Monday about Clinton’s plan to make education more affordable.

Here are the tweets from Bush and Clinton, in sequential order:

Hillary started with a pretty basic tweet promoting her plan to take on student debt.

Cost won't be a barrier to an education. Debt won't hold you back. Read Hillary's plan: http://t.co/A4pWb3fOf4 pic.twitter.com/KVyr8SlSVn

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 10, 2015

Then, Bush fired back, attacking Obama’s approach to college debt and suggesting that Hillary will be the same.

@HillaryClinton pic.twitter.com/m6LAHYCLok

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) August 10, 2015

Then, Clinton got personal and brought up Bush’s less-than-stellar record on education affordability when he was the governor of Florida.

.@JebBush Fixed it for you. pic.twitter.com/d4q9EWpXCA

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 10, 2015

Finally, Bush fired back with a “redesign” of Clinton’s much-mocked arrow logo, but moved the conversation from student debt to taxes.

.@HillaryClinton fixed your logo for you. pic.twitter.com/141nXHQe4Z

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) August 11, 2015

The back-and-forth got pretty nasty relatively quickly. While there’s no guarantee that it was Clinton or Bush behind these tweets, and not members of their respective staffs, the fact that both official accounts were willing to play ball is pretty indicative of the important role that social media will have in this race. Currently, Clinton has roughly four million Twitter followers, Bush’s campaign clocks in at just over 250,000. Both are almost certainly looking to grow those followings, particularly as surprise GOP frontrunner Donald Trump approaches the four million followers mark himself.

So, why are our politicians suddenly getting into Twitter spats a la Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift or Drake and Meek Mill? It’s pretty simple–it’s tantamount to free advertising. Although it’s estimated that one billion dollars will be spent on online campaigning in 2016, attracting followers and conversation via silly photoshop jabs is pretty cheap. Given how expensive it is to run a campaign, attracting free press–after all, we’re all writing about the Bush/Clinton Twitter spat now–is a smart idea.

Bush and Clintons’ Twitter back-and-forth also falls directly in line with the kind of animosity that these two candidates have developed. For example, when both candidates appeared at the Urban League Conference on July 31, Clinton spoke first and took the opportunity to slam Bush’s “Right to Rise” campaign slogan, stating:

I don’t think you can credibly say that everyone has a right to rise and then say you’re for phasing out Medicare, or repealing Obamacare. People can’t rise if they can’t afford health care. They can’t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live on. They can’t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a college education. And you can’t seriously talk about the right to rise and support laws that deny the right to vote.

Bush’s camp responded to Clinton’s comments by accusing her of playing politics–a time-old jab that roughly translates to “the other candidate said something mean.” 

Bush hasn’t missed his opportunity to push back, however. Last night, Bush purported that current problems in Iraq stem from the actions of the Obama administration–which Clinton served under as Secretary of State. Bush said Obama and Clinton were too eager to pull troops out of Iraq and stated:

So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers. Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous.

Given Clinton’s dominance in the Democratic polls, and Bush’s strong second place standing on the Republican side, it makes sense they’re starting to snipe at each other. Doing so over social media might add a new facet to those interactions, but as this promises to be an incredibly long campaign, we can expect to see shade thrown from all sorts of directions–in person and over social media alike.

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 Same Fight, Better Photoshop: Bush and Clinton Take to Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday night, the top ten Republican presidential candidates gathered in Cleveland, Ohio to duke it out on stage for the GOP nomination during the first primary debate of the year. Candidates were asked questions on a wide range of topics, from what they believe is the best approach to combat ISIL in the Middle East, to whether or not God has influenced their decisions to run for President. The panel of men, 90 percent of whom are white, debated women’s health care issues as well as the #BlackLivesMatter movement, and argued about who among them was the most average, the most American, and who hates Hillary Clinton the most. The riveting debate had hundreds of quotable moments, but here are the top ten quotes, one for each of the presidential hopefuls, in the order of the candidates’ standings in the polls.

1. Donald Trump: “If it weren’t for me you wouldn’t even be talking about illegal immigration.”

America runs on Trumpin.

2. Jeb Bush: “They called me Veto Corleone. Because I vetoed 2,500 separate line-items in the budget.”

Jeb! will make you an offer you can’t refuse. Literally. You can’t refuse a veto.

3. Scott Walker: “I defunded Planned Parenthood more than four years ago, long before any of these videos came out…”

Scott Walker: destroying women’s health centers before it was cool.

4. Ben Carson: “I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins.”

So if you ever elect a Siamese twin to public office, Carson can help to make your vote count twice.

5. Mike Huckabee: “The military is not a social experiment, the military does two things: kill people and break things.”

How strong? Army strong.

6. Ted Cruz: “Well, I am blessed to receive a word from God every day in receiving the scriptures and reading the scriptures. And God speaks through the Bible.”

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz is the chosen one by divine right.

7. Rand Paul (to Chris Christie): “I don’t trust President Obama with our records. I know you gave him a big hug, and if you want to give him a big hug again, go right ahead.”

Don’t ever think we don’t notice all of your awkward hugs, Christie.

8. Marco Rubio: “Well, first, let me say I think God has blessed us. He has blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”

Velma might find her glasses before the Democrats can find a good candidate, #AmIRight Rubio? High five!

9. Chris Christie (in response to Rand Paul wanting to get warrants before tapping into Americans’ phones and emails): “Listen, senator, you know, when you’re sitting in a subcommittee, just blowing hot air, you can say things like this.”

Look at all of these hot air balloons emanating from Cleveland during the debate!

10. John Kasich: “I’m an old-fashioned person here, and I happen to believe in traditional marriage…. And guess what, I just went to a wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay.”

(Read: “I HAVE GAY FRIENDS I SWEAR.”)

Jennie Burger  and Maurin Mwombela also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

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

The post Top 10 Quotes from the First 2016 Republican Presidential Debate 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.

Although the Republican field for 2016 presidential nominees is quickly becoming as crowded as a particularly small clown car, the Democratic field is starting to get some new contenders as well. As of today, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has just joined the crowd.

O’Malley went back to his roots for the announcement, to the city of Baltimore where he was once mayor. He in some ways embraced the controversy and violence that the city has been experiencing after the recent death of Freddie Gray, pointing out that it is a symptom of larger American problems. He stated:

What took place here was not only about race, not only about policing in America. It was about everything it is supposed to mean to be an American.

While that’s a compelling talking point, O’Malley’s strongest point to his campaign appeared to be his determination to set himself apart from the current Democratic frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. O’Malley appears to be positioning himself as left of Clinton (although of course not as far left as fellow candidate Senator Bernie Sanders) and a new voice in comparison to the Bush and Clinton families. One of the lines in his announcement took a shot at both Clinton and presumed Republican contender Jeb Bush. O’Malley stated:

Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he’d be just fine with either Bush or Clinton. Well, I’ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street—the presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.

Yet O’Malley has an uphill battle–exactly because of that moderate, outsider status he purports to represent. Clinton has long been viewed as a strong leader who is inevitably going to win the Democratic nomination–according to Real Clear Politics she’s polling at an average of 63.6 percent. Based on the same polls at a distant second (12.5 percent) is Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has said multiple times that she’s not running. Vice President Joe Biden–also not declared–is polling at 10 percent. Sanders is just behind him at almost 9 percent. Next, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee have 2.6 and 1.8 percent respectively. O’Malley finally clocks in at just under one percent.

Those aren’t particularly good odds–and that’s probably because there’s been nothing particularly exciting about O’Malley yet. While he may be running as a more liberal counterpoint to Clinton, he’s not as liberal as Sanders. To position yourself between two more dynamic and beloved candidates isn’t really a winning strategy.

Whether or not O’Malley actually has a shot will probably depend on Clinton herself. At this point, the Democratic nomination is pretty much hers to lose–a big scandal or health scare could do her in, but it seems like a pretty long shot. While O’Malley joining the race has made it a bit more crowded, she’s still standing on a very pretty pedestal.

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 Does Martin O’Malley Actually Stand a Chance? appeared first on Law Street.

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

The Hispanic Population in the United States

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

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

Hispanic Voter Turnout

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

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

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

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

Why is Hispanic turnout so low?

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

Party Lines

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

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

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

Hispanic Voters in Swing States

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do Hispanic voters prefer Democrats over Republicans?

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

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

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

How will Hispanic voters affect the 2016 elections?

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

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

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

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

Pew Research Center: Mapping the Latino Electorate by State

Pew Research Center: Five Takeaways About the 2014 Latino Vote

Additional 

Albuquerque Journal: Low Hispanic Voter Turnout Partly Fault of Candidates

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

Infoplease: Hispanic Americans by the Numbers

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

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

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

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

Hispanic Voters 2012: Hispanics in America

MSNBC: Latino Voters Likely to Back Hillary in 2016

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

Washington Post: Handicapping the Hispanic Vote for 2016 

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

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

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

Valeriya Metla

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

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

Although the United States was founded to escape a monarch and royal family, it is irrefutable that certain families have dominated the American political spectrum. Surnames have transformed into a sort of brand for these families through money, publicity, talent, or a combination of them all. As of October 2013, 37 members of Congress had a relative who had previously served in Congress. Some of the most discussed names of potential candidates for the 2016 presidential election are those shared with former presidents. The scope of power and attention each of these families has acquired through the years is a testament to America’s fascination with celebrity figures.

The Kennedy Family

Perhaps one of the most iconic families in American politics, the Kennedys have shaped the country over several generations. The first, Patrick Joseph “P.J.” Kennedy, was a savvy businessman born to Irish Catholic immigrants. As a young man, he worked on the Boston docks to support his three sisters and widowed mother. P.J. built a name and fortune for himself, eventually entering the political realm. He served five consecutive one-year terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, followed by three two-year terms in the state senate. His political aspirations went beyond his own career, influencing and pushing for his children to reach the highest office in the country.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (“Jack”, “JFK”)

P.J.’s eldest son, Joseph Patrick “Joe” Kennedy, Jr., was expected to become president, but those plans were derailed when Joe Jr. was killed in action during WWII. His father’s aspirations then fell upon a younger son, John F. Kennedy.

After serving in the U.S. Navy, JFK was elected to the House of Representatives from Massachusetts’ eleventh district for six years, followed by a stint as a Senator fro the same state until he was elected president. To this day, he is the only Roman Catholic president and the only one to have won a Pulitzer Prize. He was also the youngest elected to office, inaugurated at just 43 years old.

JFK’s presidency was dominated by the Cold War. He is known for the failed military invasion in Bay of Pigs, which damaged his administration’s image; however, the Cuban Missile Crisis restored faith in his presidency. JFK also started the Peace Corps, and supported racial integration and the civil rights movement.

Only two years and ten months passed between his inauguration and assassination, yet to this day he remains one of the most celebrated and idolized figures in American history.

Robert Francis Kennedy (“Bobby,” “RFK”)

Jack’s younger brother Robert served as his campaign manager and White House advisor during the presidency. Bobby’s authority over cabinet departments led the press to call him, “Bobby – Washington’s No. two man.” JFK appointed him as Attorney General, causing controversy as critics claimed he was unqualified and inexperienced.

His position as AG allowed him to advocate for the  Civil Rights Movement. The sense of urgency for racial equality that RFK projected greatly influenced the President.

After JFK’s assassination, Robert became senator of New York and then began campaigning for presidency. He was shot and killed the night he won the California primary while leaving the ballroom where he had addressed his supporters.

Edward Moore “Ted” Kennedy

Edward was the youngest Kennedy and far outlived his brothers. He was the third-longest serving senator in America, having represented the state of Massachusetts for nearly 47 years. During his time in the Senate, he was chairman and member of many different committees.

The presidency was not a realistic goal for Ted after the Chappaquiddick incident, in which a young woman was killed. Despite this tragedy, he attempted to run in the 1980; however, he lost the Democratic primary to President Jimmy Carter.

The Next Generations

The privileges and opportunities afforded to members of the Kennedy family are vast.  While many descendants of the Kennedys have served at various levels government, these are some of the more notable examples:

Caroline Bouvier Kennedy

Caroline is the only surviving child of JFK and Jackie since her brother, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr., was killed in a plane crash in 1999. There were talks of “John John” following in his father’s political footsteps before his untimely death. President Obama appointed Caroline as United States Ambassador to Japan in 2013.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

Eldest child of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen served as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland from 1995 to 2003.

Joseph P. Kennedy II

The former U.S. Representative for Massachusetts’ eighth district, RFK’s eldest son served in office from 1987 until 1999.

Joseph P. Kennedy III

Son of Joseph P. Kennedy II and grandson of RFK, he was elected to Massachusetts’ fourth congressional district in 2012.

Patrick J. Kennedy II

The only child of Ted Kennedy to enter politics, he served as U.S. Representative for Rhode Island’s first Congressional district for 16 years. When Patrick decided not to run for reelection, which was prior to Joseph P. Kennedy III’s service, it was the first time Washington was without a Kennedy in office in 60 years.

John Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg

Although still an undergrad at Yale University, JFK’s only grandson has already discussed pursuing a future career in politics. “Jack” has already interned on Capitol Hill for John Kerry and writes political commentary for Yale publications and CNN.

The Bush family in the Red Room of the White House

The Bush Family

While the Kennedys are royalty among liberals, the Bush family is champion of the right. Two Governors, two U.S. Senators, one Supreme Court Justice, one Vice President, and two Presidents make up their lineage. Various business achievements have created a net worth of $60 million. Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, said that the Bushes have “got to be considered the most successful political dynasty in American history.”

David Davis

Davis started the political dynasty serving as Abraham Lincoln’s campaign manager. Once Lincoln was elected, David received a recess appointment to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. He was an associate justice from 1862 to 1877. He is first cousin three times removed to George H. W. Bush’s generation.

Prescott Bush

Prescott Bush was the father of George H. W. Bush and grandfather of George W. and Jeb Bush. Prescott became a profitable businessman before becoming a U.S. Senator from Connecticut from 1952 to 1963.

George H.W. Bush

Commonly referred to as Bush Sr. since his son’s administration, the elder Bush enlisted in the U.S. Navy before attending Yale. Bush Sr. moved his family to Texas and became a prominent member of the oil industry. He had become a millionaire before the age of 40.

Prior to his presidency, Bush Sr. held various positions including: Member of the House of Representatives, Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Chief of the Liaison Office to the People’s Republic of China, Director of Central Intelligence, and Vice President to Ronald Reagan.

Following his inauguration in 1989, his administration was instrumental to changes both domestically and abroad. The collapse of the Soviet Union and Berlin Wall happened in the earlier stages of his presidency. The United States was involved in the Gulf War during this time as well. At home, Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which led to a 40 percent increase in legal immigration to the United States. Bush St. lost his campaign for a second term to Bill Clinton.

George W. Bush

Following in his father’s footsteps, George W. Bush entered both the oil industry and political arena. George W. worked on his father’s presidential campaign, and then joined others in purchasing the Texas Rangers. He made history as Governor of Texas by becoming the first Governor to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2011 transformed George W. into a wartime president. They propelled the United States into the War on Terror and the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Approval ratings for George W. landed on both ends of the spectrum. During the 2008 financial crisis they were one of the lowest on record, while following the events of 9/11 they were the highest in history. To this day, George W. Bush’s legacy is split between those who praise him and those who view him as catastrophic for the country.

John Ellis “Jeb” Bush

George W. Bush’s younger brother Jeb served as Governor of Florida from 1999 to 2007. Jeb was the first and only Republican to serve two full four-year terms as Governor of Florida. Republicans are hopeful for a Bush 2016 campaign in the next presidential cycle, and Jeb has acknowledged that he is thinking about running. There are many factors that will decide the younger Bush’s next steps, such as immediate family wishes and if he predicts he could run a successful campaign.

The Clinton Family

While not technically a dynasty yet, the Clinton family continues to be influential in the world of politics, philanthropy, and advocacy.

William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton

Unlike President Kennedy and Bush, Bill Clinton was not born into a family of wealth. He grew up in a modest home in Arkansas before earning scholarships to Georgetown and Yale Universities.

Clinton entered public service through election as Arkansas Attorney General prior to his election as Governor of Arkansas. He was inaugurated as the 42nd President of the United States on January 20, 1993. Clinton quickly gained popularity with the public by signing into law the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. A major disappointment of his presidency, the inability to create a national health care system spearheaded by the First Lady, plagued his administration. The House of Representatives voted to impeach Clinton in 1998 following the Monica Lewinsky scandal on alleged acts of obstruction of justice and perjury. The Senate voted to acquit Clinton on both charges. Despite the impeachment, Clinton left office with an approval rating of 66 percent.

Since leaving office, President Clinton has been active in philanthropic endeavors. The William J. Clinton Foundation (renamed in 2013 as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation) was founded in 2001 to, “Bring people together to take on the biggest challenges of the 21st century.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary’s time as First Lady was influential and has had lasting impacts. She played a central role in shaping the course of her husband’s administration. Hillary used her position to help pass legislation such as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Foster Care Independence Act, and the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Her time spent as a United States Senator from New York was also filled with progress. She served on five Senate committees with nine subcommittee assignments. President Obama nominated Hillary to the position of Secretary of State in 2009, and she served in this capacity until 2013.

Hillary ran for president in 2008, but ended her campaign to endorse future President Obama. Many Democrats hope she will run again in 2016, and there is already a campaign-in-waiting in place if she formally decides to run.

Chelsea Clinton

As the only child of Bill and Hillary, Chelsea has been in the public eye her entire life. She has worked for NBC as a special correspondent, and works closely with the Clinton Foundation as Vice Chairwoman.

Negative Aspects of Family Dynasties

The 2012 presidential election was the first since 1976 in which a member of the Bush or Clinton families was not a presidential or a vice presidential candidate; however, a recent poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News finds that 69 percent of Americans would prefer that neither a Bush nor a Clinton dominate the 2016 presidential race. This implies that Americans dislike family dynasties, yet they continue to elect them. Why is that? It’s easier to vote for a familiar name, regardless of the actions of its predecessor. By nature budding politicians who are raised in the spotlight have an easier time building a political career, as the public and potential donors will take their campaign more seriously and feel an instant connection.

Kennedy

Following the appointment of Caroline Kennedy as Ambassador to Japan, speculations rose regarding if she deserved the position or if sharing the high-profile Kennedy name prompted the assignment. It would benefit the Obama Administration to have a member of one of the most beloved Democrat families representing him and the country. Japan is an advanced nation, so her position would not be as challenging compared to being placed in a country ensnared in domestic or international conflicts.

Bush

While in many instances being related to former politicians is a blessing, for potential presidential nominee Jeb Bush having the family name could be detrimental to a potential presidential campaign. His older brother’s tainted legacy will prove to a be challenge if the younger Bush does decide to make a stab at running for the presidency.

Clinton

With revelations about what goes on behind the scenes of the Clinton Foundation, speculations surround the Clintons and their willingness to sell their image and reputation to further their own agendas. One of which could be a potential Hillary campaign, as the former Secretary of State has made the foundation her base while she contemplates a presidential run. With the addition of Hillary and Chelsea taking on major roles, it has truly become a family affair.

The New York Times wrote a takedown of the Clinton Foundation, stating:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

 Resources

Primary

Hart Research Associate/Public Opinion Strategies: Survey

Additional

The New York Times: Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions

Time: Liz Cheney And The Family Business: A Chart of All Congressional Dynasties

JFK Library: Joseph P. Kennedy

JFK Library: Life of John F. Kennedy

James W. Hilty: Robert Kennedy: Brother Protector

CNN: RFK Assassination Witness Tells CNN: There was a Second Shooter

JFK Library: Edward M. Kennedy

History Channel: Incident on Chappaquiddick Island

Time: Remembering JFK Jr., 15 Years Later

NBC News: The Kennedys: Portrait of an American Dynasty

Celebrity Net Worth: Bush Family Net Worth

Washington Times: Rise of ‘Dynasty’ Quick, Far-reaching

Michael Fix: The Paper Curtain: Employer Sanctions’ Implementation, Impact and Reform

Washington Post: As Jeb Bush Eyes 2016, Key Question is how a Presidential Campaign Would Affect his Family

The New York Times: Impeachment: The Overview — Clinton Impeached; He Faces a Senate Trial, 2D in History; Vows to do job Till Term’s ‘Last Hour’

Politico: Foundation Renamed for all Three Clintons

Christian Science Monitor: Chelsea Clinton Gets PhD From Oxford: For What?

Huffington Post: Political Family Feuds: The Good, the Bad, and the Really Ugly

Washington Post: 3 Reasons why we Have a Love/Hate Relationship With Political Dynasties

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Political Family Dynasties in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter has become one of the easiest ways to provide snippets of information to the public. Celebrities, writers, and of course, politicians, can accrue followers to spread their messages. But not everyone is as twitter-savvy as they could be. In fact, some politicians have tweeted some pretty embarrassing, stupid, and ridiculous things. So….(drumroll please!)

Thank you, dog!

Let’s countdown some of the biggest political Twitter mistakes, gaffes, ridiculous statements, and abuses of 2013!

10. Rep Tom Latham’s inability to understand satire

The tweet in question:

Thanks Politiwoops, for archiving this!

The backstory: A few weeks ago, The Daily Currant published an article claiming that MSNBC pundit Chris Hayes was sickened by Veteran’s Day. Tom Latham retweeted the link, and posted about it on Facebook, stating he was sickened by the statements that Chris Hayes didn’t actually make. The problem? The Daily Currant is a satirical news outlet, much like The Onion.

Now, Latham did take down the post very quickly, but still, someone on his staff should have thought to point out that he was getting mad over a fake news story. Fact checking, guys. It really isn’t that hard.

9. Ari Fleischer publicly admitting he’s kind of a huge jerk 

The tweet in question:

Courtesy: PublicShaming

The backstory: Alright, you caught me, Ari Fleischer isn’t actually a politician, but I couldn’t pass this one up. He is a former White House Press Secretary though, so he counts. In this tweet from January of 2013, he referenced the fiscal cliff deal reached in Congress on January 1, 2013. In that deal, tax deductions for individuals donating to charities would be limited. But, it’s important to note that it would only apply to individuals making $250,000 or more, yearly. If Mr. Fleischer was worried about this change to tax breaks applying to him, he’s clearly doing relatively well. So, for him to choose to withhold money from charities because it either a) wouldn’t benefit him as much or b) because it made a political point, was pretty awful. The fact that Fleischer happily tweeted this fact for all the world to see?

Downright despicable.

8. Rep Juan Vargas’s really really bad typo 

The tweet in question:

Thanks again, PolitiWoops!

The backstory: We all make typos, and autocorrect has brought down even the most text-savvy among us. But this is very, very bad. What’s worse is that neither he nor his staff noticed this god awful typo for 8 weeks. That’s right, this tweet remained on Rep Vargas’s twitter for 2 months.

7. TN State Rep. Frank Niceley just lying to constituents on Twitter

The tweet in question:

The backstory: Everyone threw blame around during the shutdown. But most of it came from pundits and commentators, not elected officials themselves. Using the hashtag #harryreidsshutdown was pretty disingenuous, and it’s safe to say that this was simply not polite political rhetoric.

Play nice, Frank Niceley. Otherwise your name will be misleading.

Politicians are supposed to provide information to their constitutions and fight for their interests, not mock each other.

6. David Cameron proves it’s not just American politicians who are embarrassing on Twitter

The tweet in question: Well, it’s not really a tweet, it’s more something that happened on Twitter. David Cameron, the current UK Prime Minister, followed an escort agency on Twitter on November 20th. This is what Carlton of London’s Twitter looked like a few weeks ago.

The backstory: Ok, this one isn’t actually that embarrassing. It turns out this is an older Twitter account set up during the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown’s time in office. This account is barely used today. But it auto follows back anyone who follows it. So, a bunch of spam accounts have a Twitter follower that reads as “UK Prime Minister.” Even if this isn’t the PM’s team’s doing, they should have really taken care of these old accounts a long, long time ago.

Pretty embarrassing, right, Hedgehog?

5. Steve King meets “DREAMers”, tweets his fear

The tweet in question:

Shout out to Public Shaming!

The backstory: A group of “Dreamers,” or young, undocumented immigrants who have usually been successful in the US, visited Steve King’s DC office. They didn’t invade. They walked in to voice their concerns, as they have the right to do. I highly doubt Steve King actually felt unsafe, and if he did, it’s because he’s a racist neanderthal who does things like compare these “Dreamers” to drug mules.

I need to take a quick eye-roll timeout.

4. Jeb Bush doesn’t do his research 

The tweet in question:

The backstory: Apparently, there’s some crazy rumor going around that the US is closing its embassy in Vatican City. It’s not true. Completely not true. It’s being moved into a new compound with the Italian Embassy in Rome, but they will still have separate offices and staff. The Vatican Embassy will even have it’s own entrance. And it will actually be located .1 miles closer to the Holy See. I got all of this information by tapping top secret wires, of course.

I’m only half this coordinated.

I’m kidding. I got it through a google search. Which was apparently not something Jeb Bush thought to do before tweeting this information.

3. GOP’s “racism has ended” flub

The tweet in question:

The backstory: I would write some snarky response to the RNC’s claim that racism has ended, but the good people of the internet have already done it for me! The hashtag #RacismEndedWhen started trending and some truly inspired responses were born:

Check out this compilation, courtesy of BuzzFeed.

2. Speaking of Racism, Obama Advisor tweets N-Word 

The tweet in question:

The backstory: Dan Pfeiffer, a senior advisor to President Obama, was tweeting back and forth with New York Times journalist Jonathan Martin regarding an article about the shutdown.

Apparently he meant to say “bigger” but had a very unfortunate typo. Another Journalist, Lachlan Markay caught the error and immediately retweeted it, despite Pfeiffer’s attempts to delete it. Pfeiffer had tweeted it from his official White House account. Again, we all make typos. But if you’re going to be tweeting from your official White House Twitter handle, it really is important to double, triple, and quadruple check what you’re saying.

1. Rep. Steve Stockman thinks babies should be given guns

The tweet in question:

Public Shaming caught this one.

The backstory: There’s a lot of terrifying implications about this tweet. First, it implies that Rep. Steve Stockman thinks that women who have abortions should be shot. This comes from Stockman’s campaign Twitter, meaning that he wants people who might vote for him to know this. This is horrifyingly violent rhetoric. Rep. Stockman, put down the computer, please.  

It’s time to stop for the day.

—

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 [Pete Souze 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 The Biggest Political Twitter Mishaps, Gaffes, and Weird Statements of 2013 appeared first on Law Street.