In Sunday’s episode of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver massacred the U.S. primary process, calling it the “electoral foreplay we’ve been engaging in since February” and highlighting a video clip of a screaming man at the Nevada primaries.

The system, with both primaries and caucuses, is hard to understand for most people and Oliver did his best to explain it to us. Some states have primaries, some have caucuses, and some–like Washington State–have both. At caucuses people have to physically attend a convention that can take hours, and then vote, traditionally leading to a low participation rate–the Republican turnout for its caucuses in 2012 was a terrible 3 percent.

Take Washington, for example, which Oliver highlights. The state has both primaries and caucuses, but the primaries “don’t count”–meaning the state ignores the primary votes and only counts the caucus votes. Oliver also points out that primary voters don’t exactly vote for a candidate; they vote for which delegates will attend the National Party Convention and then those delegates vote for the candidates on the voters’ behalf.

Oliver went through a case when Trump–“America’s walking, talking brushfire”–won the popular vote but received fewer delegates than the candidate who “got his ass kicked” (also known as Ted Cruz). And as Oliver said, there is no clearer evidence that our system is broken, than when Donald Trump is actually making sense. Trump himself summed up the situation by saying, earlier this month:

“You’ve been hearing me say it’s a rigged system, but now I don’t say it’s anymore, because I won.”

Check out the full clip below:

For more info on the primary process, check out: How do Superdelegates Work? And Why are People so Mad?

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post John Oliver Takes on the Broken Primary System appeared first on Law Street.

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

The Loyalty Card

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

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

Sean Simon

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

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

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

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

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

— Alex Katz (@Alex__Katz) April 4, 2016

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

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

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

Robbins responded to Delegate Madeleine Bordallo with a tweet:

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

— Tim Robbins (@TimRobbins1) April 4, 2016

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

Sean Simon

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

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

Super Tuesday kind of sucked. Actually, I take that back, it really sucked. On the Republican side, America’s future Supreme Leader Donald Trump walked away with wins in seven states, and 234 new delegates, and many from both sides of the aisle are beginning to worry that his nomination has become all but inevitable.

I guess no one should be that surprised. After all, he’s been racking up big totals in the primary thus far–although in some cases his share of the actual vote has been a bit less than polling would indicate. But, he’s still had a pretty damn good run so far–all said and done about 1/3 of the Republicans who have casted their votes up until this point have voted for the Donald.

So, no one is quite sure what will happen next. It seems likely that Ted Cruz, who had an okay night and took home wins in his home state of Texas, as well as Oklahoma and Alaska, probably won’t drop out. And Marco Rubio, who has just begun to have some of the establishment coalesce behind him, won Minnesota last night, and doesn’t seem to be dropping either.

But, it still seems that many elites are desperate to stop Trump, and there’s a few different trains of thought emerging. One is that either Rubio or Cruz should drop out, allowing the party to unify around one anti-Trump force. For example former contender Lindsey Graham, who has somehow managed to be kind of the voice of reason at points during this totally-bonkers election cycle, pointed out that rallying around Cruz may be the only choice. Graham said on CBS:

I made a joke about Ted, but we may be in a position to have to rally around Ted Cruz as the only way to stop Donald Trump, and I’m not so sure that would work. I can’t believe I would say yes, but yes.

Then there’s another school of thought, which actually advocates that both Rubio and Cruz stay in the race and try to take as many votes away from Trump as possible. Cruz or Rubio supporters would have to choose a new candidate if either dropped, and surely some could pick Trump. So, keeping the votes closer to a three-way split may keep Trump from meeting the threshold he needs, and gives the GOP more wiggle room at the convention. As Slate’s Jim Newell explains the theory:

Rubio would not have defeated Trump in Texas, so it was useful for Cruz to stay in and take a majority of those delegates for himself. Rubio won’t be able to defeat Trump in Ohio, so Kasich can handle that task. A split field makes it impossible for one candidate to gain a majority over Trump. But it helps to stop Trump himself from getting a majority.

Newell does acknowledge that this theory probably won’t work, especially given that there are more winner-takes-all primaries post-Super Tuesday, but it doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been a serious consideration for the GOP.

So…Trump won Super Tuesday. Most people are horrified, and rightfully so. But as this future-trainwreck hurtles toward the convention, someone has to do something. Unfortunately, at this point, it’s easy to wonder if anyone can.

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 That Was an Un-Super Tuesday: Can the GOP Stop Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

While it feels like the presidential campaign started ages ago, and in many ways it has, a relatively small number of primaries and caucuses have actually taken place. But all of that is soon to change–Super Tuesday is here.

What is Super Tuesday?

Tuesday, March 1 gets this fun-sounding name because it is the day when more states hold primaries and caucuses than any other day in the primary season. While the race has been going at full steam for the past several months, only a small number of the total delegates have been formally awarded. So far, about 5 percent of the total delegates have been awarded for Republicans and less than 4 percent for Democrats. But that will change very quickly in the month of March. On Super Tuesday, there are 865 delegates up for grabs for the Democrats and 595 for Republicans. At the end of the day, 24 percent of the total delegates for Democrats will be awarded and about 30 percent for Republicans.

So Who Votes?

Both parties will hold caucuses or primaries in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia. Republicans will also hold a caucus in Alaska and Democrats will caucus in American Samoa and Colorado. Additionally, Democrats abroad will vote in sites across 40 different countries until March 8.

What to Expect: Democrats

While this election has been as unpredictable as ever, recent polls do give us some clues as to what we can expect on Tuesday. As it currently stands, the two frontrunners will seem positioned to build on their lead.

Hillary Clinton is coming off of two recent victories in Nevada and South Carolina, the latter of which she won by nearly 75 percent of the vote. While Sanders has proven to be a much stronger candidate than many anticipated, particularly when it comes to fundraising, Clinton still has a commanding lead when you look at pledged delegates and superdelegates.

The Super Tuesday electorate is also particularly favorable for Clinton. With an endorsement from the Congressional Black Caucus and high favorability ratings from black voters, we can expect a high turnout among black voters in many Super Tuesday states, where they make up a large percentage of Democratic voters. NPR has a nice illustration of Clinton’s advantage in its discussion of the ideal outcomes for both of the Democratic Candidates. According to NPR, an ideal scenario for Sanders would leave him up by just one delegate at the end of the day. But for Clinton, an ideal outcome would be leading by more than 150 of the Super Tuesday delegates. Put simply, if everything goes well for Sanders his campaign’s best hope is, essentially, to break even. It’s also important to note that Democrats allocate delegates proportionally based on the share of the popular vote or caucus precinct outcomes, which gives Sanders more opportunities to win delegates.

What to Expect: Republicans

On the Republican side, polls suggest that frontrunner Donald Trump will come away with a pretty significant victory. FiveThirtyEight has a rundown of the polls in Super Tuesday states, but Trump is generally the favorite in most states. One important exception is Texas, as Ted Cruz has managed to maintain a significant lead in his home state despite Trump’s nationwide surge.

Texas also has the most delegates up for grabs on Tuesday, as 108 of the state’s 155 delegates will go to the winners of its 35 Congressional districts while 47 of the state’s at-large delegates will be spread out among the top vote earners depending on their margin of victory. While a win in Texas would certainly be a big boost for Cruz, he has an uphill battle in most states.

While the delegate rules vary widely by state on Super Tuesday, there are more opportunities for Republicans to earn large chunks of delegates in one victory compared to the Democrat’s more proportional system. While that may not mean much, the important thing to take away is that the Republican frontrunner after Super Tuesday could come away with a pretty sizable lead.

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 Super Tuesday 2016: What to Expect appeared first on Law Street.

The saying, “The system is rigged” is one of Bernie Sanders’ favorite lines on the campaign trail. He gives speech after speech highlighting economic injustice and inequality that reiterates the same sentiment. It’s why so many of his supporters are passionate in their support for his campaign, but Sanders’ animosity towards the system may expand in the coming months to an additional target: the Democratic Party’s primary system.

When news broke that Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary by more than 20 percent, yet may tie Hillary Clinton in delegates, Sanders supporters and Hillary-haters were irate. How could this be? What sort of system lets that happen? Welcome to the primaries, where everything’s made up and the points don’t matter. Okay, they matter a little bit, but it’s complicated. To understand the outrage after the New Hampshire primary, you need to look closer at the role of superdelegates.

So in this installment of “Why the Primaries are Weird,” we’ll be diving into everyone’s favorite subject: delegate math–specifically the Democratic Party and its superdelegates.

How do Delegates Work?

Before we get into the absurdity that is superdelegates, let’s do a quick review of how delegates come into play in the primary system. Each state elects delegates, individual party members who are pledged to a certain candidate based on the outcome of the state’s primary or caucus. The way delegates are chosen varies widely by state, but the important thing to know is that they are based on the outcome of a primary or caucus. Generally speaking, delegates are allocated proportionally based on their share of the vote in an individual state’s primary or caucus.

Delegates elected at the state level are then bound to a specific candidate, meaning that when the Democratic and Republican conventions occur after the primaries, elected delegates cast their votes for the candidate that they are pledged to. When all is said and done, the candidate with a majority of the delegates in the party convention wins the nomination and proceeds to the general election.

What about superdelegates?

The process outlined above is the way that Republicans choose their nominee and how the Democrats allocate most of their delegates, but not all. Enter superdelegates, a group of individuals chosen by the party who are allowed to vote in the Democratic Convention alongside the elected pledged delegates. The difference between superdelegates and regular delegates is their “unpledged” nature. Regular delegates are pledged to support a specific candidate based on the outcome of a state’s primary or caucus. Superdelegates are not pledged and are essentially free to vote however they wish at the Democratic Convention.

Superdelegates are Senators, Congressmen, and state party officials, and essentially exist to give the Democratic Party more control over their nominating process. While each party has additional delegates for “party leaders and elected officials” (PLEOs), all Republican PLEOs and most Democratic PLEOs are pledged, meaning that they are bound, at least in some way, to the results of state elections. The remaining unpledged PLEOs are the superdelegates.

To win the Democratic nomination, you need to have at least 50 percent of the 4,763 total delegates, making it a race to 2,382 delegates. Out of the 4,763 total delegates, 712 are unpledged superdelegates, approximately 15 percent. This means that a candidate could conceivably lose the popular vote and still win the nomination with the support of enough superdelegates. This is how Sanders was able to win the popular vote by a massive margin while possibly tying Clinton in the delegate count. Six of New Hampshire’s eight superdelegates support Clinton, so the race appears much more even. In fact, Clinton had a large national lead over Sanders before the race even started because of the number of superdelegates who say they will support herm though it is important to note that these superdelegates have up until the Democratic Convention to change their mind.

So… Blame Hillary?

No, you can’t blame Hillary Clinton. This is a perfect example of “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” You don’t have to like Hillary Clinton as a person or as a candidate, but she is not responsible for the Democratic Party’s undemocratic system of choosing its nominee. Sanders, a candidate who isn’t even really a Democrat, is inherently disadvantaged by the system, but that doesn’t make it Clinton’s fault.

I’m not defending Hillary Clinton, I’m just saying that if you are mad about the system, which is understandable, you should be mad at the Democratic Party. But before you claim that superdelegates are just another way that the Democratic Party is sidelining Bernie Sanders, you should remember that this system has been around since the 1980s and probably isn’t going away anytime soon. In a perfect bout of irony, to get rid of superdelegates, the superdelegates themselves would have to make the final decision.

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 How do Superdelegates Work? And Why are People so Mad? appeared first on Law Street.

Monday night, Donald Trump was speaking to a crowd of supporters at a rally before New Hampshire’s primary. In response to a statement about his opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, a crowd member yelled, “He’s a pussy!”

Trump responded by repeating the slur, but in the context of a reprimand.

“You’re not allowed to say that…” Trump said. “…I never expect to hear that from you again.”

Then, looking out over his audience of prospective voters, he added, “She said he’s a pussy.”

His statement was met by raucous cheering, and a bit of a “what can you do” attitude from Trump.

Watch the whole charming moment below:

Trump, Trump, Trump…this could have been your moment to rise above the childish antics your campaign has been associated with! Instead, in the guise of taking the high road, you chose to insult your opponent with immature name-calling.

Someone deserves a time out.

Now, let’s talk about the word “pussy” for a moment. When someone uses the word “pussy” they are usually referring to one of three things:

1. a feline,
2. a woman’s vagina, or
3. a person who is weak.

The third definition, and the colloquialism Trump and his supporter used in the video above, is actually meant to be a shortened version of the word “pusillanimous” which does mean “showing a lack of courage or determination.”

Unfortunately, if you were to ask the average person on the street, they would assume the insult is in reference to the second definition: a vagina.

But wait a second! Why would weakness ever be associated with vaginas? Aren’t they super strong?

The answer is, yes! However, the association of female genitalia with weakness is the result of a patriarchal society. It even inserts itself into our day-to-day language. Look no further than the phrase “grow some balls,” which implies the person growing said balls would gain bravery and strength to accomplish a task or goal.

Trevor Noah on why it’s nonsensical that calling someone a ‘pussy’ should be an insult. #gendermatters #gender pic.twitter.com/NXIFr5177W

— Matthias Lehmann (@yongsagisa) December 8, 2015

So, Mr. Trump’s supporter, and Mr. Trump himself, didn’t just use the classic bullying technique of degrading by name-calling. No, they attempted to degrade Senator Cruz with a word that shouldn’t even be used for degradation. (Unless Trump knows the word pusillanimous, which I sincerely doubt.)

Let this be a lesson to us all: the word “pussy” in its iteration as a slur is really an insult to women. Let’s just stop, okay?

Morgan McMurray

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

The post Let’s Stop Using the P-Word as an Insult appeared first on Law Street.

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

Only 33 percent, apparently.

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

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

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

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

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

Data courtesy of Gallup.

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

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

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

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

Julia Bryant

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

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

During the 6th (oh god, why?) Republican debate last night, there was a powerful moment when Canadian-ish Ted Cruz and sentient troll doll Donald Trump had a show-down about “New York values.” Cruz previously stated that Trump “embodies New York values” and then elaborated during the debate. Trump parried with arguably with his best moment to date; watch the entire exchange below:

Trump gave a compelling response to a clear attempt from Cruz to stereotype and insult America’s largest city–but New Yorkers still aren’t happy with Cruz’s generalizations and insinuations. The New York Daily News, which is well known for its biting covers, responded to his comment this morning with a somewhat cheap shot at Cruz’s Canadian birth:

Stop the presses! A new Page 1… DROP DEAD, TED: https://t.co/68hKgqmjBxpic.twitter.com/veDsxLYDTN — New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) January 15, 2016

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also released a statement, pointing out the hypocrisy of Cruz’s statement, given that his father is an immigrant, and stating: 

He doesn’t know what New York values are because New York is in many ways the epitome of what formed this nation and what keeps it strong. The Statue of Liberty is in our harbor.

Others took to Twitter to emphasize their frustrations with Cruz’s comments. 

Tip: if your spouse works on Wall St. and you hold fundraisers in Manhattan, maybe avoid complaining about “New York values”

— Emma Roller (@emmaroller) January 15, 2016

Uhhh. If New York values include tolerance, inclusion, and bodily autonomy for women, sure. Okay.

— roxane gay (@rgay) January 15, 2016

He even got some crap from Republican Congressman Peter King (although this was before Cruz explained what he meant by “New York values” last night). King stated:

Memo to Ted Cruz: New York Values are the heroes of 9/11; the cops who fight terror; and the people you ask for campaign donations. Go back under a rock

As a diehard “West Wing” fan, my first thought was this scene, when the implication behind a “New York sense of humor” was made as clear as day during the show’s pilot episode: it means Jewish.

Cruz’s comment was clearly an attempt to play on an us vs. them rhetoric that has existed ever since New York’s initiation as the cultural mecca of the U.S. It was a calculated political statement to be sure–Cruz knew that he probably wasn’t going to win New York anyways–probably not in a primary, and almost certainly not in a general–so why not pander to the Americans who see New York as a hotbed of immorality and run-amuck liberalism? It was dog whistle politics at its finest: “New York values” is a code word for immoral the same way that “San Francisco values” is a codeword for LGBTQ, or “urban” is a codeword for “Black people.”

Cruz’s risk came back to bite him in the ass, at least in the press, but I don’t know that it will hurt him in the long run. The idea that New York isn’t “real America,” is, to some conservatives, a valid concept. Erick Erickson, conservative pundit extraordinaire, made that loud and clear during the debate:

New York City is not America. Y’all keep defending it though.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 15, 2016

Let’s put it this way–it’s no secret what Cruz was talking about when he said “New York values”–New Yorkers got it, and so did everyone else on that stage. It wasn’t new, and it wasn’t surprising, but we’ll have to see if it makes a difference in Cruz’s fight to defeat Trump.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Ted Cruz Blasts “New York Values”: We All Know What that Means appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Governor Scott Walker became the first candidate to drop out of the running for the Republican presidential nomination. His departure from the primaries has led to a wide range of reactions, from utter shock, to great relief, to unoriginal jokes. No matter your opinion on this small town Colorado native turned runner up student government president turned college dropout, there is no doubt that he was a solid candidate. An exciting one? No, but a solid one. His position on some of the most important issues to Republican primary voters were almost uniformly in line. He held tenure for three terms as governor in a swing state while only being recalled one little time. Moreover, his position on the core issue of this recall, bargaining rights for public unions, made him a conservative hero, and thrust him onto the national stage. Perhaps most importantly, Walker rides Harley Davidson motorcycles and is a good Midwestern Christian. So how did this walking, talking embodiment of rice cakes become the quickest failed campaign in modern politics?

Well, people watched him talk. If you were to describe Scott Walker as a candidate, he would appear to be one of the strongest candidates. Unfortunately, as we watched him drowned out by bigger voices in two straight debates, it was hard to see such strengths. The constant coverage of these two debates ensures that voters do not forget about his dismal performances. Due to the incredibly long span of time in which primaries are held, candidates must hold on to the excitement and support that they originally garnered. Just ask Hillary Clinton about how hard that is.

In addition to their length, primary campaigns require millions of dollars, which means many devoted supporters and maybe a billionaire donor here and there. In any other election season, with these issues still remaining, Scott Walker would be a candidate who sticks around until the end of the primaries. Unfortunately for him, this election’s primary voters have no interest in a run-of-the-mill establishment governor. This is a group of voters who have dealt with eight years of a wildly liberal Obama administration intent on limiting religious liberty, weakening America’s stance in the world, and involving government in every facet of our lives. Or at least that’s what many primary voters feel has been the case. Changing the course of this country would require someone who is willing to think outside the box and speak his mind. Scott Walker didn’t seem to fit the bill for those voters.

Scott Walker’s exit from the Republican primaries is a case study in everything wrong with American politics. In the age of a 24-hour news cycle intent on telling its viewers who is winning at every moment in primaries that run for over a year, require millions of dollars in funding, and are decided by radical primary voters who reward borderline racist and Islamophobic speech with huge campaign donations and poll boosts, solid candidates become unelectable. And that is how a candidate who was originally the front-runner at his announcement abruptly spiraled into dismal poll numbers and eventually dropped out. Here’s to hoping Scott Walker finds more success as a bedtime audio book narrator. Or maybe a NyQuil spokesperson.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did Scott Walker Really Drop Out of the Presidential Race? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

He stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

New Hampshire voters will have a new way to celebrate their civic duty come the state’s primary election in February. On Tuesday, a federal judge struck down the state’s law that banned voters from showing a completed ballot to anyone–including sharing a photo on social media. According to the ruling, ballot box selfies are now a protected form of free speech.

New Hampshire is not the only state with this sort of law, in fact, most states have laws prohibiting voters from showing their marked ballot to the public. Although many of these laws are on the books, most states tend to have lax enforcement policies. Unlike most states, however, the New Hampshire law was recently updated to include digital images and social media–effectively banning ballot selfies. Those changes prompted the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire (ACLU-NH) to file a lawsuit against the state, citing the law as an undue ban on free speech.

State Representative Leon Rideout, Brandon Ross, and Andrew Langlois were the plaintiffs in the ACLU-NH’s lawsuit. All three voted in the primary election last September, took pictures of their ballots, and shared them online. Out of protest, Langlois opted to vote for his recently deceased dog, Akira, instead of the available primary candidates. While voting, Langlois took a picture of his ballot with his phone and later shared it on Facebook. Shortly after posting the photo, he got a call from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office notifying him that he was being investigated for possible election law violations. Before it was stuck down, violating the law was punishable by fines of up to $1,000. Rideout and Ross were also investigated for their posted pictures.

The ACLU-NH argued that the law’s restrictions violate voters’ right to free speech, and the court agreed. On the other hand, Secretary of State William Gardner argued that the law helped stop vote buying and coercion because it prevented someone from proving who they voted for. In a 42-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro ruled that the law was not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest in regulating free speech, the traditional test in First Amendment cases. While the judge noted that coercion and vote buying have historically been important issues, they no longer pose a risk to the election process. In his ruling, the judge noted,

He [the secretary] produced no evidence that either vote buying or voter coercion are current problems in New Hampshire. Plaintiffs, in contrast, have produced undisputed evidence that there have been no vote buying prosecutions and no complaints of vote buying in the state since at least 1976.

While the law was enacted with good intentions–preventing coercion and vote buying–the issues that it aimed to address are generally not that important anymore. Even if such fraud were to occur, other laws still make it illegal and the government can still prosecute misconduct. More to the point, selfies and the ability to share pictures of civic participation online are important forms of free speech. For better or worse, ballot box selfies are a free expression and they are here to stay–at least in New Hampshire.

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 New Hampshire Voters: You May Now Take Ballot Selfies appeared first on Law Street.