Until Wednesday, Republican State Representative Beth Fukumoto was the youngest female caucus leader in the United States, as House minority leader in Hawaii. But after breaking from her party on President Donald Trump, the young Hawaiian Republican may now leave the GOP.

At age 33, Fukumoto represents a younger and more moderate faction of the Republican Party. Trump’s comments about women and minorities did not appeal to her, and she chose to express her concern with the direction her party is heading by joining the Women’s March in Honolulu on January 21.

While giving a speech at the event, she talked about how she tried to explain to her eight-year-old niece why a room full of grown-ups were yelling insults at her, after she said at the Republican convention last summer that she thought Trump was being sexist and racist. She said,

It doesn’t matter to me who you voted for. People cast their votes for a lot of different reasons. But, no matter who your choice was, the fact remains the same. A man won the White House with anger and hate, and our kids watched it happen.

But the same words that generated cheers at the women’s event made her Republican colleagues so upset that they ousted her from her position. Fukumoto said that within 24 hours of her speech, party members were calling her, asking her to resign for speaking out against the president. On Wednesday all but one, State Rep. Cynthia Thielen, voted for her to be removed. “God, I’m sorry to lose our Minority Leader, someone I so deeply deeply respect. She’s the face of Republicanism as it should be, but won’t be anymore,” Thielen said after the vote. Thielen also spoke at the Women’s March in Honolulu.

Fukumoto said the party had told her that if she wanted to stay on, she would have to promise not to criticize Trump for the rest of his time in the White House. “And with what we’ve been seeing in the news with the different executive orders coming out every day, I didn’t believe I could make that commitment,” she said. She believes the Republican Party as it stands doesn’t tolerate people who speak up. “It seems to be punishing dissent, and when you have a political party, you need dialogue,” she said.

Now Fukumoto feels ready to leave the GOP and is considering joining the Democratic Party instead, but wanted to ask her constituents first, as they were the ones who voted for her. In a letter sent this week, she is asking for their opinions before making an official decision. She is not the only young Republican to switch parties. Her predecessor, Rep. Aaron Ling Johanson, left because he felt that the party had become too narrow in its “demands for ideological purity.”

And according to a new study by political scientist Gary C. Jacobson, young Republicans are much less conservative than older ones. Not only do younger Americans tend to be more liberal generally, but Jacobson also found a significant split between young and old Republicans on almost all topics. He also found that fewer young Republicans than ever before are willing to identify as conservative. This could help change the Republican Party and decrease the growing ideological divide between the parties. But on the other hand, many young people who identify as liberal choose to join the Democratic Party instead, meaning it could be harder to actually change the GOP if there is only the older, white, conservative base left.

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 Hawaiian Republican Leader Ousted for Opposing Trump, Now May Leave the GOP appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, while Americans were busy analyzing our President-elect’s latest round of ill-advised tweets, France held a presidential primary, and the results could have some major impacts on the country’s 2017 presidential elections. On Sunday, candidate François Fillon beat out his two opponents, Alain Juppé and Nicolas Sarkozy, in the primary elections for France’s center-right Republican party. The victory was a major upset, considering that just last month, Fillon, France’s former prime minister, was trailing far behind Juppé and Sarkozy in the polls, making it unlikely that he would even be a competitor.

If you’re wondering why this news should matter to an American preparing for Trump’s presidency, it’s because France is poised to be the next nation to watch as Western countries are trending strongly toward populism and ultra-nationalism. These attitudes, which led to Brexit and our own President-elect Trump, have also been on the rise in France, a country which has traditionally been known for its left-wing politics.

If you’ve heard Marine Le Pen’s name being thrown around recently, it’s because she’s the leader of France’s far-right National Front, a party that has been known for certain extreme views against immigration and the European Union. Le Pen’s father, who was the party’s former head, was expelled from leadership after anti-Semitic comments.

After the Brexit decision, Le Pen wrote an op-ed for the New York Times calling the European Union a “prison of peoples” and declaring “The People’s Spring” inevitable. While the Brexit decision certainly gave Le Pen more ammunition to use in her cause, it is likely that Trump’s election will further increase the anti-establishment attitudes reflected by Le Pen and her supporters. She herself called Trump’s win a “sign of hope” and an indication that “people are taking their country back.”

Fillon’s victory on Sunday is significant because the Republican party was considered the greatest hope to prevent Le Pen’s victory in the presidential elections. While Fillon is a social conservative who has vowed to fight “Islamic totalitarianism,” he is still considered to be preferable to the left over Le Pen, whose plans to appeal to the working class and those fed up with the “establishment” and “elites” mirror the familiar rhetoric of the Trump campaign. It is unlikely that the left will have any representation of its own in next year’s race, as the low popularity of current Socialist President François Hollande indicates that the party will be unable to compete. Hollande announced today that he would not be seeking re-election, but polls indicate that any alternative candidate chosen by the Socialist Party will likely not be able to challenge Fillon and Le Pen.

If Le Pen is victorious in 2017’s elections, it could spell trouble for the future of the European Union and would likely be a discouraging outlook for liberal politics all over the globe. As the “Trump effect” sends ripples that will undoubtedly shake up the world order, the French election is one to watch.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why You Should Care About the French Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

After Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the White House to Donald Trump as a result of the Electoral College system, there have been calls for change. On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer introduced a bill that would abolish the Electoral College and, according to many hopefuls, make future elections fairer.

The presidency is the only office where you can get more votes & still lose. It’s time to end the Electoral College. https://t.co/OXZ9vHaIH1

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (@SenatorBoxer) November 15, 2016

On Tuesday, Clinton was leading the popular vote by 990,758 votes. And by the time that all the votes are counted, the New York Times estimates that she will lead by more than two million, which would be over 1.5 percentage points. Barbara Boxer Boxer said in a statement:

She is on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama. This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts.

Even Donald Trump at one point thought the system was undemocratic, as he pointed out in a long series of tweets in 2012. He even confirmed his stance in an interview on “60 Minutes” on Sunday. He said: “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.”

.@realDonaldTrump is exactly right – the candidate with the most votes should win. pic.twitter.com/CG1cvcKbQx

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (@SenatorBoxer) November 15, 2016

But that was Sunday. On Tuesday, he had changed his opinion again, and praised the system on Twitter.

The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2016

He also pointed out that if the election had been based on the popular vote, he would have won it anyway, because he would have focused on campaigning in New York, California, and Florida.

If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2016

Trump is the fifth presidential nominee to win the election despite losing the popular vote. The last one before him was George W. Bush, who beat Al Gore in 2000 even though Gore won the people’s vote by 0.5 percentage point. Since Boxer’s bill is an amendment to the Constitution, it would have to pass by a two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as three-quarters of all states. But no matter the outcome, it is a sign that more people are realizing that the Electoral College is old-fashioned and outdated.

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 Senator Barbara Boxer Introduces Bill To Get Rid of the Electoral College appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

Here’s the full clip:

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

He added:

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

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

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

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Hackers have leaked personal emails from former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in which he describes Donald Trump as a “national disgrace” and an “international pariah,” Buzzfeed reported. The website DCLeaks.com obtained the emails, which include exchanges between journalist and former Powell aide Emily Miller as well as other Powell associates. The leaks also highlight disagreement between Powell and the Clinton campaign over the use of her private email server during her time as Secretary of State.

In one email to Miller, Powell wrote that Trump “is in the process of destroying himself, no need for Dems to attack him. [Speaker of the House] Paul Ryan is calibrating his position again.” Powell also said that the idea promoted by Trump and others that President Obama was not born in the United States is racist. He said:

Yup, the whole birther movement was racist. That’s what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn’t keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim.

Powell is a self-described lifelong Republican but has endorsed President Obama twice, indicating that he has problems with the direction Republican Party of today is heading. In another email with “Racism” in the subject line, he wrote, “Or as I said before the 2012 election, ‘There is a level of intolerance in parts of the Republican Party.’” He went on to say he wouldn’t comment about Trump to the media, arguing that it would feed into his ego.

Colin Powell also said that having Roger Ailes, who resigned from Fox news over sexual harassment allegations, as an adviser won’t exactly help Trump win over women’s votes, Buzzfeed reported.

Shortly after the leak, Powell confirmed that the emails are authentic and said that the hackers “have a lot more.” The website, DNCLeaks.com, has links to Russian-backed hackers who were previously accused of breaking into the accounts of the Democratic National Committee and releasing emails that embarrassed the party.

#DCLeaks Powell in leaked email: ‘I didn’t tell Hillary to have a private server at home’ https://t.co/uxALVOi4CC

— DC Leaks (@DCleaks_) September 14, 2016

In other leaked emails, Powell talked about Hillary Clinton’s private email server, an issue he wished to stay far away from. In February he wrote to Kenneth Duberstein, a White House chief of staff under president Reagan, saying, “I didn’t tell Hillary to have a private server at home, connected to the Clinton Foundation, two contractors, took away 60,000 emails, had her own domain.”

And in September 2015 email to Lawrence Wilkerson, his former chief of staff, he wrote, “[Hillary Clinton] and her mishandling of this has really given her a major problem I do not wish to get involved in, despite the best efforts of her team to drag me in.”

Defenders of Hillary Clinton like Representative Elijah Cummings have tried to point to Powell and Rice as a precedent for the use of a private email account while serving as Secretary of State. In a press release, Representative Cummings noted that both Rice and Powell had “received classified national security information” on their personal accounts. But Powell took issue with the classified emails that many cited, claiming that they were not classified at the time. Both Powell and Rice expressed, over email, an increasing annoyance with the situation.

This also led Powell to email Duberstein. “Stupid State Department dragged me in and I had to take care of myself […] I warned them. Don’t say these unclassified messages are classified or should have been classified,” he wrote.

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 Colin Powell Calls Trump ‘International Pariah’ in Leaked Emails appeared first on Law Street.

The lobbying firm run by Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort conducted business in support of Ukraine’s pro-Russia political party that governed the country from 2012 to 2014. According to emails the Associated Press obtained, Manafort’s firm aimed to sway American public opinion in favor of Viktor Yanukovych’s government, through positive coverage in U.S. media outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The firm also tried to undermine American sympathy for opposition politician and democracy advocate Yulia Tymoshenko who was imprisoned by Yanukovych’s government.

As Law Street Media reported earlier this week, Paul Manafort was mentioned in a list of names that received big cash payments from the Ukrainian government, with $12.7 million earmarked for him. Rick Gates, now his deputy, was at the time working for Manafort’s political consulting firm, DMP International LLC. He directed the work of two Washington-based lobbying firms, Mercury LLC and Podesta Group Inc., in trying to bring about a positive impression of the Ukrainian government.

The emails show that Gates personally scheduled appointments between the Ukrainian foreign minister and American politicians. The foreign minister, according to the emails, did not want to use his own embassy in the U.S. for any coordination of meetings. Gates was also assigned the task of undermining support for Yulia Tymoshenko, even as the U.S. pressured the Ukraine government to free her.

Trump said Tuesday night that if he becomes president he would make sure officials would not be allowed to accept speaking fees from “corporations with a registered lobbyist for five years after leaving office or from any entity tied to a foreign government,” a proposal that seemed to be directed at the Clintons. But now it is clear that two of Trump’s own campaign advisers failed to report their activities as foreign agents, as they are required to by federal law. Not only that, but they specifically denied ever having been involved in such work, a felony that is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Exactly what role Manafort played in the lobbying operations is not clear, other than being the boss of Gates at DMP International. Both he and Gates have previously said that they did not conduct any direct lobbying, and only introduced the two Washington-based firms to a European non-profit which then took over. But the content of the emails seem to contradict that.

Manafort and Gates have been in charge of Trump’s campaign since the spring of 2015, which makes their earlier lobbying activities especially noteworthy. This brings a lot of questions to the surface and coincides with criticism of Trump’s relationship to Russia.

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 Trump Advisers Led Covert Lobbying Scheme for Ukraine’s Pro-Russian Government appeared first on Law Street.

Less than three months before the election, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump appointed two new employees to top posts in his campaign staff–Steve Bannon from Breitbart and Kellyanne Conway, an experienced Republican pollster.

Paul Manafort will maintain his role as campaign chairman despite recent accusations of receiving large cash payments from the Ukrainian government.

Steve Bannon, conservative media executive at Breitbart News and former investment banker, is the new chief executive of the Trump campaign. The campaign has always had a positive relationship with the Breitbart, which has published a lot of Trump-friendly news coverage over the past year. When Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was arrested for assaulting Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields earlier this year, Breitbart and Bannon didn’t do much to support her. Then-editor Ben Shapiro quit in protest and has since called Bannon a bully that “has shaped the company into Trump’s personal Pravda.”

That is just one of many things Shapiro has to say about Bannon:

I Know Trump’s New Campaign Chairman, Steve Bannon. Here’s What You Need To Know. https://t.co/nTZ2GpGJnnpic.twitter.com/qJrOQyRv9t

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) August 17, 2016

Now that Bannon is the formal campaign executive for the Republican nominee, he will step down from his position at Breitbart, at least, until the campaigning is over.

Kellyanne Conway was first hired by Trump in July, before then she worked for a super PAC that supported Ted Cruz and was not exactly a fan of Trump. She has been in the media spotlight before for some of her past statements, like when she said that women should be more feminine rather than feminist, or that conservatives need to stop talking about rape (she preferred to call it “the four letter word”). She once said that there’s an alternative for liberal women “constantly thinking about abortion, contraception, being a victim of the patriarchy,” and that conservatives present “an alternative of fun, engaging accomplished women.”

She has now been upgraded to Trump’s campaign manager. A statement published on the campaign’s website said:

I have known Steve and Kellyanne both for many years. They are extremely capable, highly qualified people who love to win and know how to win. I believe we’re adding some of the best talents in politics, with the experience and expertise needed to defeat Hillary Clinton in November and continue to share my message and vision to Make America Great Again. I am committed to doing whatever it takes to win this election, and ultimately become President because our country cannot afford four more years of the failed Obama-Clinton policies which have endangered our financial and physical security.

The news about the Trump campaign’s reshuffling comes after weeks of negative headlines and rising tension from news about Manafort. Roger Ailes, the Fox News founder and anchor who had to leave his post because of sexual harassment allegations, was appointed as campaign adviser earlier this week as well.

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 Trump Reshuffles Campaign Staff, Hires Breitbart News Chief appeared first on Law Street.

As Donald Trump continues to poll poorly among minority voters, many within the Republican Party are getting nervous as the electorate becomes more diverse each year. On Monday morning, the hashtag #BlackVotesMatter started trending on Twitter, as the general election gets closer and Trump still hasn’t done much to win over black voters.

The fact is, very few black Americans support Donald Trump. According to a FiveThirtyEight analysis, Trump is actually polling in fourth place among black voters, behind Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein. In an average of several recent polls, Trump’s support among black voters sits at about 2 percent.

Trump’s numbers are worse than almost every Republican presidential nominee since 1948, in surveys that are taken after the party conventions and before Election Day. The only Republican nominee to poll worse than Trump was Barry Goldwater in 1964, who voted against the Civil Rights Act in the same year as the election. For a closer look at the parallels between Trump and Goldwater you should check out Sean Simon’s analysis.

With black voters expected to make up between 10 to 15 percent of the electorate in November, the GOP is urging Trump to change his tactics and appeal to a broader group of Americans. But as the New York Times reports, Trump has done very little to reach out to black voters, preferring to campaign with a mix of large rallies and media interviews.

In a recent visit to Detroit–the city with the 10th largest black population in the country–to talk economics last week, he went straight from his private plane to the Detroit Economic Club, where he talked to a mainly white audience. So far, Trump has decided against traditional community stops along the campaign trail and as the New York Times points out, he has yet to hold an event geared toward important black constituencies.

His director of African-American outreach, Omarosa Manigault, told the New York Times that she was “extremely concerned” about Trump’s standing among black voters. Manigault also said she is researching opportunities for him to meet key figures in the African-American community to improve his perception. “He’s alienated a number of minority voters, and that’s reflected in his low numbers,” said Tara Wall, a communications consultant who has helped with black outreach on previous Republican presidential campaigns.

But the question posed by many on social media is how black votes can matter to the Republicans when their nominee has openly criticized the Black Lives Matter movement as a threat to police officers. Trump also has a questionable record on race himself.

Yo, say, GOP, if Black votes matter, drop your racist Presidential candidate and the KKK vibe at his rallies & your convention. Start there.

— Jeffrey Wright (@jfreewright) August 15, 2016

However, many were also unhappy with both parties’ records on race.

Black ppl should not fall for the “Black Votes Matter” crap. When both parties are dominated by white supremacy

— Cliff Po (@Pharaoh_Po) August 15, 2016

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 Do #BlackVotesMatter to Donald Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump’s campaign has had a rough week. After the intense backlash surrounding the presidential candidate’s comments about Khizr Khan, followed by his erroneous claims that he saw a video of the U.S. plane delivering $400 million to Iran, and recent reports of discord within the Trump campaign, the latest poll numbers are now showing a widening lead for Hillary Clinton. On top of all that drama, rumors have been flying that Trump may not make it to November.

Trump himself doesn’t seem to be backing down from the fight just yet, and it would be surprising if his ego actually let him. However, ABC News reports that Republican officials are already thinking about his potential replacement if he were to leave the race. Many are even questioning if Trump’s recent actions, which seem to be reckless even by Trump standards, are actually a form of self-sabotage, insinuating that he doesn’t want to run anymore but has too much pride to actually say so.

Trump says he would never drop out: https://t.co/Avr6eAK6o8 pic.twitter.com/4hev2jZRaR

— andrew kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) August 5, 2016

If Trump ultimately did decide to drop out, the Republican National Committee would have the authority to choose an alternate nominee. The RNC’s official rule on filling vacancies in nominations states the following:

(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.

(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.

(c) In the event that the members of the Republican National Committee from any state shall not be in agreement in the casting of votes hereunder, the votes of such state shall be divided equally, including fractional votes, among the members of the Republican National Committee present or voting by proxy.

(d) No candidate shall be chosen to fill any such vacancy except upon receiving a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the election.

It is unclear who specifically the RNC would have in mind as a replacement, but it would be tough to find someone to replace Trump’s blend of personality traits and anti-PC opinions that have attracted so many to him. If he were to leave the race, it would be difficult to find a candidate to appeal to both establishment Republicans as well as the unique crowd that Trump has been able to attract.

The list of Republicans who won’t be backing Trump in the general election keeps growing, with many prominent figures even pledging to vote for Clinton. Meanwhile, as his poll numbers fall, Trump has begun commenting on his fears of a “rigged election” in November. If Trump’s support does keep falling, could he drop out just to avoid the humiliation of defeat? Or would he decide to stick it out and blame a loss on factors such as the electoral system itself?

A candidate dropping out of the race is fairly unprecedented; the only person to attempt it was independent candidate Ross Perot, who dropped out for 3 months before re-entering the race prior to the election. However, Trump has run a different kind of campaign, one that hasn’t played by the rules of traditional American politics. Having a major candidate drop out would fit right in with the unpredictable atmosphere of this insane election year.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Could Trump Drop Out of the Race? appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump possesses the most divisive surname in America. He climbed from the top tier of reality television to the top of the Republican Party ticket. Hardly anybody saw this coming. It’s as if he was plucked from the brain of a science fiction novelist with a political bent, not quite believable enough to put on the page. But he is real, as is his movement. And if he can prove the pundits wrong once, can he a second time? During the primary cycle, political futurists swung and missed. But now that Trump the nominee is a reality–and the prospect of a President Trump looms–analysts, journalists, and soothsayers alike tap into their imaginations (and whatever concrete stances Trump has given them to build off) to forecast what an America led by the real estate scion might look like.

That’s exactly what happened Wednesday at New America–a Washington D.C. think tank–at an event titled “Imagining President Trump.” A stable of liberal and conservative thinkers gazed into their crystal balls to chew on what a Trump presidency might portend for the country and the very make up of America’s political system.

Foreign Policy

“America first.” That is the gist of Trump’s foreign policy platform, and that would be the driving force behind his relationships with the rest of the world. At least we think.

“You can take him on his word on Monday and then you look at his word on Tuesday and it’s the opposite of what he said on Monday so you don’t know,” said Injira Lakshmanan, a columnist for The Boston Globe and Politico.

She noted the foreign policy speech Trump delivered–via teleprompter, a rarity for him–at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington a few weeks ago, where he outlined what his foreign policy approach would be as president: He derided America’s historical lack of a coherent foreign policy, while also promising to be unpredictable, two seemingly incompatible notions.

Trump has sworn to destroy the Islamic State, though ceding that can only be done with a sizable surge of ground troops, from 20,000-30,000. But those will not be American troops, Trump has said. World leaders are terrified of an America led by Trump, Lakshmanan said, and as President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden’s recent trips abroad have shown, the current administration is attempting to assuage those fears. She also predicted that if President Trump removed the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, as he has indicated, world governments might reign in–or pull out altogether–their dollar investments.

“A lot of this is Trump flying by the seat of his pants. He throws out ideas as they occur to him, that feel right, but they are very contradictory,” Lakshmanan said, adding: “The rest of the world is terrified.”

First 100 Days In Office

For the last few decades at least, a popular metric when measuring a president’s success is his (or her) first 100 days as commander in chief. Is the status quo upheld or flipped on its head? Are campaign promises kept? Are new amenities added to the White House?

“I wouldn’t be surprised at all if both parties decide to conspire to make him the least effective president in his first hundred days,” predicted Lara Brown, director of George Washington University’s Political Management Program at the Graduate School of Political Management. She said it is in neither parties’ interest to have him succeed.

Matthew Continetti, the Editor in Chief of the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative-leaning political news site, said that Trump’s chief concern is being the center of the national conversation. Continetti believes that that hunger and his need to be talked about will lead to several disasters in his first 100 days: “a dysfunctional government, internecine warfare among his staff, and geopolitical instability.”

But Brown predicts Trump’s first 100 days might also deliver a shock to the voters who elected him to the highest office in the land. These are people who fixated on him because of his blustery promise of radical change, but who “would actually become profoundly disillusioned because it’s much more likely there would be no change,” Brown said.

The Republican Party

In securing the Republican nomination, Trump tapped into currents that went largely ignored by the establishment in past elections. He stirred up anger and discontent that stemmed from broken promises throughout the years. Millions of people–whether staunch conservatives, sort of conservatives, and even some disillusioned Democrats–latched onto his blunt rhetoric as the answer to an entrenched political system that has left them behind. Win or lose, Trump has sent shockwaves through the GOP, perhaps shifting its identity forever.

Continetti sees two paths forward for the party of Lincoln: the Ben Sasse option and the Tom Cotton option. Both young Republican senators–Sasse of Nebraska and Cotton of Arkansas–represent two competing factions of the party’s mood, a fissure exacerbated and revealed by Trump’s ascension. The Sasse route would embrace the moral majority image of the party and update it for a new century, something Ted Cruz tried to tap into in his failed run. For this reason, and for the sinking of the #NeverTrump movement and Sasse’s own failure to drum up support for a third-party run in November, Continetti does not see this path materializing.

Instead, the “white, populous, protectionist, ‘America first,'” option will likely prevail, Continetti said, the swath of the electorate that Cotton and especially Trump have spoken to. Norman Ornstein, also part of Wednesday’s five member panel and a contributing editor to The Atlantic, sees the warring factions within the Republican Party as akin to the ethnic divisions tearing apart the Middle East. He predicted that if America’s 45th president is indeed Donald Trump, Democrats might cozy up to him more than members of his own party would.

“He’s going to have more allies among Democrats than he will among Republicans, which will drive a good portion of that Republican base even more up the wall,” he said.

It is important to note that all five panelists on Wednesday agree that a Trump White House is unlikely. But he was written off once before, and we all know how that turned out.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Imagine an America Led by President Trump appeared first on Law Street.

As Donald Trump continues his rise in the presidential election–from a businessman joking about running for president to the man who will almost certainly be the Republican Party nominee–several Republican leaders have had to decide whether or not they are going to suck it up and support him. While some Republicans have refused to support Trump or have withdrawn their endorsements because of his repeatedly racist rhetoric, many leaders have given him their political blessing as it has become apparent that he is all they have left.

In the beginning, there was obvious hesitation to support trump. Around a month ago, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and highest ranking GOP official, was nowhere near willing to commit to the Donald Trump bandwagon. Ryan had slammed Trump for his plan to ban Muslims from entering the country, pointing out the plan’s unconstitutionality and inherent lack of conservatism. And when Trump refused to disavow David Duke in February, Ryan responded by saying,

If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices.

It seems that Ryan and others have decided to weaken the Republican Party stance on bigotry, however, as several party leaders have now readily accepted Trump as their nominee, brushing off his inappropriate behavior and rhetoric as accidental.

A recent example of this hypocrisy? This week Trump has been under fire for inherently racist comments against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an attack add, Hillary Clinton’s campaign capitalized on Trump’s statement and some Republican Party members’ decision to speak out against him.

The video shows clips of Trump’s racist interview claims that Judge Curiel could not fairly judge his case because of his Mexican heritage. His statements are then followed by different clips of prominent Republicans disapproving of his racist claims.

Paul Ryan admitted that Trump’s statements were textbook examples of racism and that he regretted the comments. Mitch McConnell criticized Trump’s statements as stupid inappropriate. Newt Gingrich labeled the comments inexcusable and Trump an amateur. But, while these Republican leaders are disavowing Trump’s remarks on TV or in the news, the sad thing is they and the rest of the party are continuing to support him nonetheless. Party leaders have repeatedly acknowledged Trump’s blatant bigotry, inappropriate rhetoric, and repeated racism, but they still stand behind him and continue pushing for him to be our next President.

At best, Republican support of Donald Trump is some kind of misguided attempt to hold the party together. At worst, the support is grounded in a firm belief in Trump’s plan to destroy all racial diversity and cultural variety in America. GOP leaders need to wake up and realize that the remarks that Donald Trump keeps making on air and in interviews, time and time again, aren’t just silly mistakes–they are who he is. And, then, if party leaders really want to put the force of their party behind the bigoted monster Trump has become (or has always been), they need to accept the consequences that decision will have for their future as a political party and our future as Americans.

Alexandra Simone

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

The post Republican Party Leaders Acknowledge They’re Backing a Racist appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the big moment that people anticipated (and feared) finally happened: Donald Trump became the apparent GOP nominee for President of the United States. While this development brings no surprise to anyone who had been following the polls for the last few weeks, it still was a huge blow to the GOP establishment, who have seemed absolutely lost and completely divided on how to approach the hijacking of their party by a narcissistic megalomaniac.

While talks of a contested convention and a potential Paul Ryan bid provided a glimmer of hope to the establishment wing of the party, any hopes seemed dashed after Trump’s win in Indiana last night. The elimination of Ted Cruz from the GOP race made it clear that the Trump train could not be stopped–and many in the party had to make a decision about whether or not to get on for the ride.

The reactions to Trump’s impending nomination from party members were varied: while some in the GOP demonstrated that they would back the party’s nominee, no matter who it was, others declared that they would choose Hillary over Trump. Then there were those who just seemed confused about what to do now…as well as those who won’t be voting for either candidate.

The “anyone is better than Hillary” camp (aka #NeverClinton)

GOP chairman Reince Priebus never seemed super-enthusiastic about the potential for a Trump nomination, but he declared last night in a Tweet that the party needed to unite in order to prevent a Clinton win:

.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton#NeverClinton

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016

Some former presidential candidates, many who were once rivals of Trump, changed their tone as well, including Bobby Jindal, who told Sean Hannity on Tuesday that Republicans who didn’t support the candidate would only be helping Hillary.

Other prominent Republicans provided a (less than) ringing endorsement for Trump, including former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer:

There’s a lot about Donald Trump that I don’t like, but I’ll vote for Trump over Hillary any day.

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) May 4, 2016

While there were few enthusiastic responses from the establishment GOP after Trump locked the nomination, it looks like many members will still be casting their vote for him come November, as long as it keeps Clinton out of the White House.

The “we can deal with a few years of Clinton if it means no Trump” camp (aka #NeverTrump)

The #NeverTrump movement did not die with the elimination of Cruz from the race. Many prominent party members expressed the sentiment that, when it came to Clinton vs. Trump, Hillary would be the lesser of the two evils. Others did not clarify whether they would be voting for Clinton or abstaining completely after last night’s results, but indicated that their #NeverTrump stance wasn’t changing now that there were no other options in the party.

As a conservative, i would always rather lose to a democrat, than support a racist and sexist with my party’s nametag. #NeverTrump

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 4, 2016

Ben Howe, contributing editor at RedState.com, tweeted his endorsement for Hillary yesterday and demonstrated his solidarity with the #NeverTrump movement.

Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE), tweeted that last night’s results didn’t change his #NeverTrump stance.

Another tweet that picked up steam showed the burning of a voter registration card by Lachlan Markey, a writer for The Free Beacon, who also expressed that he was “Never Trump. Still.”

pic.twitter.com/L0hQvfBSvS

— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) May 4, 2016

The “I need some time to figure things out” camp (aka #denial)

Many party members had yet to speak out on their choice, likely confused on how to proceed. A poll conducted  by the Morning Consult said that a quarter of Ted Cruz supporters were still unsure on whether or not to support Trump over Clinton. Cruz himself has yet to speak out on whether or not he will be backing Trump, nor has Kasich, who backed out today.

Basically, this camp of the GOP establishment refuses to endorse Hillary, but also hasn’t yet expressed any sort of desire to vote for Trump. Time will tell how (or if) these party members vote.

The GOP must spend the next few months grappling with the fact that Trump will be the representative for the party in the general election. Meanwhile, Trump must figure out how to woo the establishment wing of the GOP away from a Hillary vote while maintaining the “anti-establishment” message that has brought him so much support. One thing’s for certain: these next few months will certainly defy traditional two-party politics and make for an unpredictable presidential race.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Trump is the Apparent Republican Nominee, and the GOP Establishment Is Confused appeared first on Law Street.

It all ended (or began) in Indiana. Voting ended at 6 PM and before the night was over, Ted Cruz was out of the race and Donald Trump had all but secured the Republican nomination.

Here’s a tweet from Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee:

.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton #NeverClinton

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016

After Tuesday, we now know who the eventual nominees will almost certainly be: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (Sorry Bernie fans, but it’s just not in the cards for him. He needs to win more than 65 percent of the remaining vote and he’s actually in worse shape today than he was before the Hoosiers took to the polls, despite winning their state).

Ted Cruz ran an impressive campaign, he was well organized, and had a better understanding of the electorate relative to most of his competitors. But Cruz was already looking like a longshot before he suspended his campaign on Tuesday night. Despite announcing Carly Fiorina as his choice for Vice President as last ditch effort, Cruz has been mathematically eliminated since the New York primary. Meaning that his only chances of securing the nomination rested on the possibility of a contested convention in which the frontrunner, Trump, did not win a majority of the Republican delegates before the party’s convention. Given that, especially in the last couple weeks, Trump was already on a pretty clear path to the necessary 1,237 delegates, the Cruz campaign had little hope. And although it may not have made a difference, the Republican Party remained notably reluctant to get behind Cruz. Just look at what former Speaker of the House John Boehner just said about him.

And now, for all intents and purposes, the general election campaign begins. Although Sanders and Clinton will continue to challenge each other, barring an extraordinary and unprecedented change of heart among the superdelegates, Clinton has it wrapped up. And now that Cruz is out, Trump has a clear path to the nomination (although Kasich is still running?).

So the remaining question is whether or not the parties will unite to support their presumptive nominees. We now have to wait and see how Republicans react to Donald Trump securing their nomination. To be fair, this is still a question for the Democrats too–Sanders has received more support than anyone thought possible and some question whether those supporters will easily shift to support Clinton–but for Republicans, it’s a much bigger issue. Given that the party split apart in the primary season as some of its leaders embarked on a crusade to stop Trump, that question is particularly important.

As the general election starts to begin, it’s anyone’s guess as to what happens next. The conventional wisdom suggests that Hillary Clinton is a strong favorite. She’s winning in head-to-head polls, which are now just starting to become somewhat useful. Republicans are deeply fractured among those who oppose and support Trump. And the only candidate with a lower net favorability rating (the percent people who view a candidate positively minus those who view him or her negatively) than Hillary Clinton is, in fact, Donald Trump. The biggest question is who turns out to vote on election day. Are Democrats able to mobilize their supporters for a somewhat lackluster candidate, and are Republicans willing to rally around Trump?

While Clinton looks like she has a formidable lead at this point, the conventional wisdom has been wrong several times so far. After all, Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee for president.

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 Cruz is Out and Trump is in, What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Early on in his quest to preside over the most powerful nation on earth, questions were raised about Donald Trump’s temperament. The businessman swore he had a “presidential” side to him that would reveal itself as the race moved on. On Monday, Paul Manafort, Trump’s newly hired delegate guru, experienced the difficulties of trying to summon his new boss’s more polished side.

According to Politico, Trump is uncomfortable with Manafort’s recent directives aimed at cleaning up his speaking style, even urging him to use a teleprompter in lieu of his more “wing it” inclinations.

A few weeks ago, Trump recruited Manafort in an effort to prevent a contested convention in Cleveland in July, and if need be, to draw on his years of experience to ensure that the convention goes Trump’s way. Manafort has decades of experience navigating contested conventions, managing Gerald Ford’s efforts in 1976 and Ronald Reagan’s in 1980.

There have been signs of late that Manafort is doing more than managing Trump’s delegate game.

Last week, at a gathering of the Republican National Committee in Florida, Manafort let slip a statement that implied Trump is simply “projecting an image” at the moment:

“The part that he’s been playing is evolving into the part that now you’ve been expecting, but he wasn’t ready for, because he had first to complete the first phase… You’ll start to see more depth of the person, the real person. You’ll see a real different way,” Manafort told AP reporters who attended the gathering at a resort in Hollywood, Florida.

Trump has cautioned Manafort, who he thinks is overstepping his role by urging him to go about things in a more “presidential” manner, something Trump is not quite ready to do.

Trump has been avoiding the Sunday morning talk shows at Manafort’s request (the instances Trump often slips up, Manafort said), though Manafort himself has been making more appearances on television of late. Trump, who relishes screen time and has bragged about his ability to procure free media coverage, is suspicious of Manafort’s recent media time, sources told Politico.

The beneficiary of the latest Trump camp tension: Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager who has been privately dueling with Manafort since he was hired in late March. Just last month Lewandowski was charged with battery after a video implicated him in forcefully grabbing Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields by the wrist at a campaign event in Jupiter, Florida. The charges were dropped and Trump, who was under pressure to relieve his longtime friend of his duties, doubled down and reiterated his support for his campaign manager.

And because of recent tension between Manafort and Trump, it seems Lewandowski will be granted even more sway moving forward. Whether the team can get on the same page as the fight for delegates drags on throughout the summer remains to be seen.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Scoffs at Campaign Aides’ Attempts to Turn Him ‘Presidential’ appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI last week’s top stories on Law Street we’re pretty eclectic. Jillian Sequeira analyzed Israel’s efforts to dismantle cults, Sean Simon imagined the Republican party as an actual party, and Alexandra Simone reported on abortion activists phoning Governor Mike Pence to discuss their menstrual cycles. ICYMI keep reading to learn more about each of these top stories.

1. Israel’s Battle to Dismantle Cults: An Inspiration for the Rest of the World?

The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, has recently introduced an anti-cult law designed to dismantle New Age sects of Judaism that are considered explosive forces within the country by the lawmakers trying to regulate them. Take a look at that situation in Israel and how other countries have handled cults in the past in comparison with the proposed Israeli law. Read the full article here.

2. If the Republican Party Was an Actual Party

You open up your email after getting to work on Friday morning, and you see that right above an email from Amazon asking you to finally buy the panini press that’s been sitting on your wish list for months, you have an email from Reince Priebus. Confused, you open the email, and you realize that it’s an evite. “Who uses evites anymore?” you wonder. Read the full article here.

3. Periods for Pence: Update Your Governor on Your Menstrual Cycle Today!

Women in Indiana are getting fired up about HEA 1337, a controversial abortion bill signed into law by Indiana Governor Mike Pence this past week. To stand up for what they believe is an infringement on women’s right to privacy, women from all over the state are calling the governor to inform him about their menstrual cycles. Read the full article here.

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

During CNN’s town hall hosted by Anderson Cooper on Tuesday evening, all three remaining Republican candidates backed away from earlier pledges that they would support the party’s eventual presidential nominee.

Cooper asked Trump outright if he planned to continue to pledge support for whoever the nominee is and Trump replied, “No, I don’t anymore.”

With a bit of prodding, Trump accused the Republican National Committee and the establishment of “treating him very unfairly.”

Trump’s comments came after Ted Cruz effectively said he’d withdraw his pledge if Trump became the nominee.

Cruz said, “I’m not in the habit of supporting someone who attacks my wife and attacks my family.” Adding, “I think nominating Donald Trump would be an absolute trainwreck, I think it would hand the general election to Hillary Clinton.”

Cruz’s unwillingness to consider supporting Trump as the party’s nominee shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Last week things between the pair got heated after they squared off in defense of their of wives’ honor.

Cruz called Trump a “sniveling coward” after the business mogul threatened to “spill the beans” on Cruz’s wife Heidi. The threats came after a super pac-funded attack ad endorsing Cruz used a nude image from a GQ photoshoot of Trump’s wife Melania to target Utah’s conservative Mormon base.

Ohio Governor John Kaisch also refused to say that he would absolutely support the party’s nominee,  admitting to Cooper that he and his fellow candidates probably shouldn’t have agreed to the pledge in the first place.

“I have got to see what happens,” Kasich said. “If the nominee is somebody I think is really hurting the country and dividing the country, I can’t stand behind them.”

During the town hall Trump also addressed the scandal involving his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields. Lewandowski was arrested and charged with simple battery of the reporter, after she claimed that he aggressively grabbed her during a campaign rally in Jupiter, Florida.

Trump doubled down in defense of Lewandowski, claiming he has no intention of “discarding” him. At one point Trump even speculated that Secret Service was suspicious of the pen Fields was carrying in her hand, because it  could have been a “little bomb“

Trump fueled the flames further by sending out the following tweet criticizing the charges, which drew a response from Fields.

Wow, Corey Lewandowski, my campaign manager and a very decent man, was just charged with assaulting a reporter. Look at tapes-nothing there!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 29, 2016

Because my story never changed. Seriously, just stop lying. https://t.co/1fz9cBHOuT

— Michelle Fields (@MichelleFields) March 29, 2016

We’ll have to wait and see if Trump continues to support his campaign manager as the case moves forward, but he’s already being criticized by candidates from both parties.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign spokesman Brian Fallon commented on the charges telling CNN, “It is a very serious charge the Trump campaign will have to answer for and obviously every candidate is responsible for the culture they create in their campaign.”

So, while it may not surprise anyone, the GOP race is getting even nastier than it has been, and a fight at the convention is still a possibility.

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 Republican Candidates Back Out of Pledge to Support Party Nominee appeared first on Law Street.

You open up your email after getting to work on Friday morning, and you see that right above an email from Amazon asking you to finally buy the panini press that’s been sitting on your wish list for months, you have an email from Reince Priebus. Confused, you open the email, and you realize that it’s an evite. “Who uses evites anymore?” you wonder. The message, in no-nonsense, 11-point Arial, says:

Paul Ryan and I are throwing a big party tonight at 10 p.m., and you’re invited. I was gonna co-host with John Boehner, but he got cold feet and decided he’d rather not be responsible for what happens. So anyway, there’s gonna be beer, foosball, and absolutely no marijuana—even for medical purposes. We’ve invited basically everyone we know, so get here, early because it’s probably gonna be crowded.

Sincerely,

Reince Priebus,
Chairman, RNC

Your only other plans for the night were stream “X-Files” and decide which Trader Joes dinner to microwave, so you figure—why not? When work ends, you head home, eat some leftovers, and get stuck for a moment on what to wear. How do you dress for a Republican party? You briefly consider some bullet casing jewelry or your favorite “right-winger bitter-clinging” spangly jacket, but you decide on a Reagan/Bush ’84 T-shirt with a blazer. Hip.

Around 10:20 pm, you arrive at the house and see 17 cars in the driveway, so you park further down the street to avoid the inevitable chaos that leaving the Republican party will cause. When you approach the front door, you see a handwritten sign that reads, “We accidentally got the front door stuck. We know it’s not too safe, but we’ve requested that the backdoor remain opened. We’re all cool with this.” You trudge around the side of the house, thinking that this must be what it feels like to be Apple.

Once you walk inside, you’re immediately deafened by the volume of chatter in the crowded basement. Reasonably, there should only be a few people here, but instead, there are so many faces and names that you can barely keep track. This is going to be a long night.

You venture into the fray and see Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Lindsey Graham all huddled in a corner, quibbling about how to get people to notice them. Rick Santorum meanwhile, is involved in a furious debate over whether Muslims or gays are more dangerous. He comes to the conclusion that a gay Muslim would be the most dangerous. He is talking to himself.

Carly Fiorina is being a bit of a buzzkill, because she won’t stop telling people about a found-footage horror movie she just saw, giving some pretty gory details about bloody baby parts. Someone asks her for the name of the movie, but Carly mumbles something about not remembering and quickly walks away. You hear Ben Carson telling George Pataki that the pyramids were built for grain, that he once attacked a man in a murder attempt, and that prisons are gay conversion camps. George responds, “Alright, but I just asked if you knew where the bathroom was.”

Jeb! Bush seems to be flitting between groups of people, trying to tell them a joke or ask how they feel about his cowboy boots. No one seems to be engaging with him, so he sits at the table eating some of the guacamole he brought. He gets excited when Marco Rubio comes over to the table, but after a scoop of guacamole, Marco retreats back to his corner and visibly winces as Chris Christie ambles over to him with a menacing look.

John Kasich is rifling through the CD rack, looking for some Linkin Park to play. Reince doesn’t have any Linkin Park CDs in his house because he isn’t a 15-year-old who’s mad at his dad. You ask John why he wants to play Linkin Park and he says, “they’re really good and I like those guys.” John looks sad.

Sitting on the couch, holding the bible in one hand and “The Catcher in the Rye” in the other, is Ted Cruz. It’s a huge couch—large enough to hold at least six or seven people–but for some reason, no one is sitting with him. Literally every person at this party is standing. Many look tired, but they refuse to sit with Ted. Ted is shouting but you can’t tell at whom, and the only phrase you hear is “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Hunched over in the center of the room, is a familiar face. Donald Trump is actually, literally vomiting on the carpet, and everyone around him begins to cheer for some reason. Reince sees you gawking at him, and shouts in your ear over the music, “We didn’t invite him! He’s been really rude, but for some reason he seems to be really popular, so we’re scared that if we kick him out, everyone will leave. Don’t worry, we’ve got it under control.” You see him pour some club soda into a sprayer bottle and hustle over.

After the cleanup effort, Reince and Paul turn off the music and say that some people have to leave. They’ve gotten a noise complaint from their “lamestream” neighbors. Dolefully, Rick Perry and Jim Gilmore head out the door. Wait, who is Jim Gilmore? And Rick Perry was here? You could have sworn that he went to last year’s party, but didn’t expect him to show up again after that party foul. Following Perry, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, and George Pataki all get up to go. Then, in a mass exodus that feels like it takes months, everyone slowly files out. On their way out, you see Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee. Were they here too? How many evites did Reince send?

All that’s left now is Donald, Ted, and John. Mitt Romney comes downstairs and starts to lecture Donald on behaving maturely. Is Mitt Romney the GOP’s dad? you find yourself wondering. Donald hears this but listens to none of it. Mitt heads back upstairs, to resume his DVRed Jeopardy! episode and finish his glass of milk, you assume. You see Donald pull out his phone and bark into it: “Hey Sarah? Yeah, this party is very low energy–sad! I need you to come over here and liven it up a bit.”

You realize that you’re now standing in a room with Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich when you have a Netflix account and there’s a perfectly good armchair at your place underneath your poster of George H. W. Bush. You head to the bathroom, sneak out the window, and high-tail it to your car. On the drive home, you hold back a tear.

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 If the Republican Party Was an Actual Party appeared first on Law Street.

Standing in front of hundreds of people at the University of Utah and thousands of people watching on TV and online, Mitt Romney laid down the strongest indictment of Donald Trump from a member of the Republican Party yet. Romney’s powerful speech denounced Trump in no uncertain terms, going further than any Republican has been willing to in this election cycle so far.

Although his attempt and attempts like it will likely fail–and some even argue that his speech could help Trump–Mitt Romney moved into uncharted territory for the party and its efforts to stop its front-runner. It’s now clear that Romney and many of his fellow more traditional Republicans won’t go down without a fight.

Romney described Trump using Trump’s own words–calling him a phony and a fraud–in an attempt to hurt his appeal as a straight-talking, anti-politician. Romney even threw in a couple sharp one-liners like, “His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University.” Despite a couple quick quips, Romney maintained his status as a well-respected and well-spoken conservative.

In his strongest criticism, Romney summed up what a Trump presidency would do to the country:

His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.

You can watch Romney’s speech below and read his prepared remarks here.

In many ways, the content of Romney’s criticism was predictable. He reflected the many complaints that Republicans and even Democrats have with Trump. While there have been multiple big pushes in the “Never Trump” movement, Romney marks a large and visible step forward: the party’s most recent nominee wrote a speech meant specifically to take down Trump.

Along with Romney is the National Review’s editorial board, who published a blistering editorial making the distinctly conservative case against Donald Trump. On the morning of Romney’s speech, several prominent Republican national security leaders also signed an open letter denouncing Trump and his foreign policy views.

The emerging ‘stop Trump’ faction of the Republican Party is starting to make its efforts much more public than before and Mitt Romney’s speech may be the start of a very significant split in the party. Romney’s attack is in many ways unprecedented. The New York Times even asked several historians if they could draw a parallel from past elections and most found it very difficult to identify a case in which a prominent politician went after a person in his or her own party. While it may not end up being all that effective in terms of its consequences for Trump’s support, it is clear that Romney’s speech marks a pretty significant move from the Republican Party to thwart its front-runner.

As this new faction comes together, so too does a new strategy to take down Trump. Republicans are calling for an all-out effort to prevent Trump from earning a majority of the delegates. Because party rules require an outright majority to win the nomination, members of the stop Trump coalition have started calling on people to vote for the most viable alternative in each state. In his speech, Mitt Romney made a similar case when he said, “Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.”

As far-fetched as it may seem, it appears as if a contested convention is the only option for Trump’s opponents within the Republican Party. In the event that Trump does not have a majority of the delegates at the time of the convention, the delegates will participate in a second round of voting in which they are no longer bound to vote for a specific candidate. Some Republicans hope that if a contested convention occurs, elected Trump delegates could defect to support a more establishment-friendly candidate.

Not only did Romney advocate for such a strategy in his speech, he gave a hint, albeit a very subtle one, that he might be interested in coming in to save the party as a consensus candidate at the convention. He notes that this election has already broken from any sort of historical precedent and that a divided party in the primaries is preferable to one unified behind Trump.

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 Mitt Romney’s Last Stand 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.

Democrats in Nevada and Republicans in South Carolina took to the polls on Saturday to choose their parties’ nominee for President. When the dust settled, Donald Trump walked away with a commanding lead in the South Carolina primary while Hillary Clinton pulled out ahead in the Nevada primary. The recent contests help solidify the conventional wisdom about the election so far, but much of the analysis is still speculation. While many questions remain, we may soon have answers–Super Tuesday is approaching.

The GOP

Although each party has only held three contests in this year’s election season, the race is starting to take a distinctive shape. Donald Trump has managed to transition his significant lead in national and state polls into a sizeable lead in actual delegate counts after three contests. While most have remained skeptical of Trump throughout the early stages of the election cycle, his lead is becoming more and more difficult to refute.

With a second place finish in Iowa and two first place finishes by sizeable amounts in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Donald Trump sits well ahead of his challengers. Nate Silver at FivetThirtyEight has a nice breakdown of the impending battle between “Trump Optimists” and “Trump Skeptics” that will pan out in the ensuing weeks. While optimists cite Trump’s strong performance in recent contests and continued dominance in the polls, skeptics note that there may be a ceiling for his support; as more establishment-supported candidates drop out Republican voters could rally behind Trump’s most electable challenger.

The Dems

When it comes to the Democratic Party’s race, Hillary Clinton is starting to take more control over the race when it comes to coalition building and endorsements. When it comes to pledged delegates, which are awarded based on the results of state caucuses and primaries, Sanders and Clinton are basically tied. But when you factor in superdelegates–Clinton currently leads with over 500 total delegates while Sanders has just 70–Clinton has a commanding lead and some important momentum from Nevada. On Saturday, Clinton took away 19 delegates and Sanders managed to get 15. In a race to 2,383 delegates, the vast majority remain undetermined.

Sanders has surprised spectators and has proven to be a much stronger opponent than nearly anyone anticipated. But Clinton has managed to earn the support of some very important Democratic constituencies. In addition to a strong lead in superdelegates, who are Democratic Party leaders, Clinton has been endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus and retains a significant amount of support among union members–two very important Democratic voting blocks.

Hillary Clinton managed to win in Nevada, which is considerably more diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two primary states. While there is some debate over Clinton’s success among Latino voters in Nevada, she has managed to maintain a strong support among minority voters. That support is likely to play an important role in the coming primaries. Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight wrote a thorough breakdown of the demographics in the upcoming contests:

While only 13 percent of Nevada caucus-goers in 2016 were black, their share in South Carolina will be much higher (55 percent of South Carolina Democratic primary voters were black in 2008). That’s why Clinton is up by 25 percentage points in the South Carolina polls. Even beyond South Carolina, on Super Tuesday 63 percent of the delegates up for grabs will be in contests with a higher share of African-Americans than Nevada.

While most of the discussion so far rests largely on speculation, the important thing to keep in mind is that our picture of the race will soon get a much-needed dose of clarity–Super Tuesday is just over a week away. On March 1, 11 states vote to allocate around 880 delegates to the Democratic candidates. To put that in perspective, just over 100 pledged delegates have been assigned to candidates so far. The biggest change now is the fact that a lot of delegates are going to be determined very quickly. The pace of the campaign picks up considerably in March, which will tests the organization and reach of every campaign in new ways. The Democratic Party’s proportional system of delegate allocation, which awards candidates delegates based on their share of the popular vote, will likely keep the pledged delegate count close in the coming weeks. But if Clinton manages to take the lead after Super Tuesday, Sanders may have a hard time catching up to her.

Final Takeaways

Super Tuesday will be a big test for the Sanders campaign, which will need to compete with Clinton in a range of primaries spanning several demographic groups. We’ll also have to wait and see if Donald Trump can turn his massive polling lead into actual votes. While the so-called ceiling theory of Trump support will be tested soon, as it currently stands, establishment Republicans have the most to worry about.

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 After Last Weekend, All Eyes are on Super Tuesday 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.

On Saturday, November 7, Donald Trump will host Saturday Night Live, which in addition to being particularly entertaining television could lead to free airtime for his opponents.

Dating all the way back to the Communications Act of 1934, broadcast channels that feature a candidate for federal office provide “equal opportunity” to opposing candidates who request their airtime. While there are several notable exceptions for news programming, this rule basically entitles Trump’s opposition to request free airtime on all NBC affiliates that air Saturday Night Live.

Because Trump is hosting the show, he will probably get somewhere between 20 to 25 minutes of airtime, which means that if his opponents submit free time requests NBC affiliate stations could be on the hook for a lot of free airtime. But this is also where several questions emerge. Equal opportunity only applies to “qualified candidates,” which according to the rule must have filed all of the necessary paperwork and made a “substantial showing” of his or her intention to seek the nomination. Any Republican who can prove that he or she is a qualified candidate may be entitled to free airtime.

The rule applies to all NBC affiliates that air SNL but not the network itself, meaning that individual stations would be charged with negotiating equal opportunity airtime. So far, most campaigns have focused on early primary and caucus states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which means that candidates’ requests may not meet the requirements in all states. Requests also need to be made within a week of Trump’s SNL appearance, but if airtime is granted candidates are entitled to do whatever they want with it.

While news programming is exempt from the equal opportunity rule, Saturday Night Live is subject to equal opportunity requests. In fact, this came up recently when Hillary Clinton made an impromptu appearance on the show. Her brief part in a sketch caused the New York NBC affiliate to notify the FCC that Clinton appeared on air without charge for three minutes and 12 seconds. As a result, Clinton’s opponents in the Democratic party were entitled to make equal opportunity claims, and one of them did. Lawrence Lessig, who at the time was running for president as a Democrat (but no longer is) asked 47 NBC affiliates for the same amount of airtime that they afforded to Clinton.

This is not the first time an equal opportunity issue has come up with a Saturday Night Live host. As Politifact points out, the show had Al Sharpton host back in 2003, which sparked concern over how the network would deal with equal opportunity claims. Senator Joe Lieberman, one of Sharpton’s opponents for the Democratic nomination, made a request and ended up getting free time–he was given a 28-minute segment to air a town hall discussion on NBC affiliates in California and Missouri. But based on the show’s opening scene in 2003, it’s pretty clear that they knew what they were doing when they invited Sharpton to host. Check out the video:

The rule’s original intention makes sense when you consider the media landscape several decades ago–broadcast television had much less competition than it does today and networks had significant of influence over the information people were exposed to. This rule essentially prevented networks from special treatment to specific candidates. But now, the idea of equal opportunity may seem a little weird. With the rise of cable and the internet, the media is much more fragmented than it was in the past, yet this rule only applies to broadcast media.

As Phillip Bump at the Washington Post points out, if Trump’s episode of SNL was only shown online, rather than broadcast over public airwaves, the rule would not apply. Some argue that equal opportunity is simply outdated and that the FCC should get rid of it. After all, the Federal Elections Commission is still able to punish media outlets if it considers their treatment of was candidate unfair. But barring a significant reinterpretation of the law, it looks like it will continue to be an option for candidates during this election cycle.

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 Trump’s SNL Appearance Could Lead to Free Airtime for GOP Candidates appeared first on Law Street.

Representative Kevin McCarthy just abruptly announced that he will no longer be seeking the Speaker of the House position. McCarthy, the current House majority leader, was the clear frontrunner for outgoing Speaker John Boehner’s seat. The election for the speakership, which was scheduled for the end of the month, will now be postponed to a later date. McCarthy’s decision surprised nearly everyone, most notably the Republican leadership who was prepared to back him.

While it is currently unclear exactly why McCarthy decided to stop pursuing the speakership, several recent events may have shaped his decision. McCarthy recently faced a lot of scrutiny after his comments on the Select Committee on Benghazi implied that Republicans used their investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for political gain. In an interview with Fox News, McCarthy said,

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.

That comment was perceived by many to imply that the ongoing investigation into Clinton’s response to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya has been used to damage the public’s perception of Clinton–and that those efforts were yielding results. McCarthy later said that his words were misunderstood and defended the integrity of the Benghazi Committee.

Despite these efforts, his original comments have already had important consequences. Hillary Clinton began using what he said in campaign ads and House Democrats initiated an all-out campaign to end the Benghazi Committee based on McCarthy’s gaffe.

But what is arguably the most significant factor at play is the emerging control that the conservative Freedom Caucus is exhibiting over the rest of the Republican Party. In recent years, there have been several signs of the emerging disagreement between the establishment wing of the Republican Party and the more conservative Tea Party wing, but the emerging leadership crisis is particularly significant. Past examples of this include recent budget fights–like the government shutdown over Obamacare in 2013–and the battle over the Department of Homeland Security’s funding, which was due to conservatives’ intense disagreement with the President’s executive action on immigration.

One of the reasons why John Boehner resigned from his position as Speaker was the challenge that the Tea Party created for him and the rest of the Party leadership. This was made clear when North Carolina Representative Mark Medows, filed a “motion to vacate the chair” in July, which in effect was an attempt to fire Boehner as speaker. Although the motion didn’t make it to the House floor–Boehner had to seek out Democratic support to prevent a vote–the message was clear. He eventually stepped down as means to help keep the Republicans together, but the factions within the party remain pronounced.

Although McCarthy was a pretty clear frontrunner for Speaker, he did have challengers. Representative Jason Chaffetz from Utah announced his intention to run for the speakership last week, and the Freedom Caucus recently endorsed Representative Daniel Webster from Florida. The Freedom Caucus, which has about 30 members, has enough influence to render the Speaker election particularly challenging. Once it comes to a vote, the incoming Speaker will need at least 218 votes to secure the position. There are currently 247 House Republicans, which means that if the caucus votes together, a candidate would need to get support from some Democrats to win the election.

While it is unlikely that McCarthy’s decision was because he didn’t think he would win the speakership, it does highlight the influence of Republican infighting on the Speaker election. Sources close to McCarthy told Vox,

It certainly wasn’t about getting the votes. That could’ve happened. However, he’s not going to be repeatedly attacked by 40 members of our conference. Nothing will ever be good enough for them, and Kevin doesn’t want to put his family through that and he doesn’t want to put the 200-plus other members through that.

Regardless of whether McCarthy thought he could win the election, he knew that without the explicit support of the Party’s conservative wing the speaker’s role would be extremely challenging. Republicans will now need to find a leader that can unite the establishment and conservative wings of the party, which will certainly be a tall order.

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 Republicans in Disarray After Kevin McCarthy Leaves Speaker Race appeared first on Law Street.

The second of what will be many Republican debates takes take place tonight at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. Following the “happy hour” debate at 6 pm, the 11 leading candidates will take the stage at 8 pm to debate foreign policy, domestic issues, and politics. In light of Donald Trump and Ben Carson’s recent popularity, many of the candidates have their work cut out for them. Here are five things that we can look for tonight:

1. It’s all about Trump

This may be obvious and/or very upsetting, but it’s true and will shape the way the other candidates conduct themselves tonight. Not only did Donald Trump survive the last debate, he has continued to gain ground since then. While many of his competitors initially dismissed him and his rising poll numbers, they now perceive him as a legitimate threat–attack ads have been launched and lead Republican donors are getting annoyed. In the first debate, most candidates simply thought he would implode or embarrass himself. But now, we can expect to see Trump’s challengers confront him directly.

Jeb Bush will have a chance to challenge Trump’s “low energy” claim (he’ll be standing next to him tonight), and Carly Fiorina will also want to get her fair share of shots in after Trump made pretty offensive comments about her appearance.

While it’ll certainly be interesting to see who gets into it with Trump, it will also be interesting to see which non-Trump candidates start a feud. We saw a small spat between Chris Christie and Rand Paul in the Cleveland debate, but seeing as the format this time around is set to encourage the candidates to talk to each other, this is something to watch.

2. Look For Tough Questions

Jake Tapper, CNN’s Chief Washington Correspondent, will moderate the debate along with Dana Bash, the network’s Chief Political Correspondent, and well-regarded conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt. Going into the debate all three moderators have expressed their interest in finding areas where the candidates disagree. Tapper recently told the New York Times, “My goal is more about: Let’s draw the contrasts between the candidates, and have them fight it out over these policies.” Viewers should also look out for some challenging questions from Hewitt, who recently gained some recognition for tripping up Donald Trump with detailed foreign policy questions.

While the Fox News debate forced many of the candidates to address challenging topics, this time around the moderators may be able to narrow in on their positions and how they differ from the rest of the pack. CNN has historically run into trouble with controversial debate questions, but if the moderators seek to push the candidates to address each other they may manage to avoid a similar fate while also sparking some controversy. While the format may help foster these arguments, it is also important to note that trying to keep 11 presidential candidates in line is no easy task.

3. Watch for Current Events

In addition to the conventional debate topics: the economy, foreign policy, and mainstream social issues, we can expect the candidates and the moderators to address some more recent developments. The events that the candidates choose to address will likely say a lot about their positions and what they stand for. We can expect Kentucky clerk Kim Davis to be referenced by Mike Huckabee and possibly Ted Cruz to try and leverage support from the party’s conservative base. Planned Parenthood will likely come up as well, especially while Ted Cruz is working to shut down the government in order to get rid of the organization’s federal funding. This could pose some issues for some candidates who want to avoid a shutdown but don’t want to appear as if they favor Planned Parenthood. We’ll have to see whether any of the moderators will force the issue.

4. Trump May Actually Win

In light of all of this, it’s pretty clear that most of the candidates are going to confront Trump and try and knock him down a bit. But we also know that previous attempts haven’t really worked. In fact, the more people talk about Trump, even when criticizing him, the better he seems to do in the polls. The other candidates may now find themselves at a crossroads in terms of how to respond. They can either try and attack Trump or even gang up on him, but that generally keeps fueling his media attention. On the other hand, they could try and stick out in their own right to get noticed without including Trump, but that could also lead to the candidates embarrassing themselves (i.e. Chris Christie calling for FedEx to keep track of immigrants).

5. Get Ready for Reagan

The debate is taking place in Reagan’s Presidential Library and the candidates will be standing directly in front of the 40th president’s Air Force One. Being a Republican debate, Reagan was bound to come up several times regardless of its location, but we can expect the candidates to lay it on strong at this one. Be sure to watch out for the ways that Reagan’s legacy is used and misused tonight.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Five Things to Look For in Tonight’s Republican Debate appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

 Say goodbye to college debt with #TheBern.

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

Disposable income FTW.

3. #CivilRightsBern: He marched with MLK.

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

If only The Bern could still move like this…

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

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

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

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

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

Get ready for your new favorite holiday.

6. #FlowerBern: Bernie loves the environment.

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

Peace, Love, and Bernie Sanders for President.

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

No further commentary needed.

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

GOP better take its money and run.

9. #EqualityBern: He’s a feminist.

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

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

10. #TheRealBern: He released a folk album.

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

He’s a cool Mayor.

Feel the Bern in 2016…

And move it like Bernie to the Democratic Primaries…

So we can #BernTheHouseDown.

Jennie Burger also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

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

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

Gay marriage is now legal in the majority of American states. The Supreme Court declined to take on cases in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin in which lower courts struck down the gay marriage ban. Given that the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and West Virginia fall under the purview of the same appeals courts, gay marriage essentially has been legalized there as well.

Most Americans now live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal http://t.co/7XbvlUuirz pic.twitter.com/DPbAoZUf5T

— Conrad Hackett (@conradhackett) October 6, 2014

The speed with which the legalization of same-sex marriage has spread through the United States is nothing short of remarkable. The first state to legalize gay marriage was Massachusetts in 2004. Back then, it was pretty much revolutionary. The Defense of Marriage Act still existed, states were voting to ban same-sex marriage by droves, and sodomy laws had only just been struck down.

In just ten years the trajectory has changed dramatically. In 2004, less than a third of the American population supported legalizing same-sex marriage, now a clear majority does.

With the opinion on gay marriage shifting so dramatically, it’s easy to wonder what role the debate will play in the 2016 election. Will it even be a topic of conversation? Or is this a done deal — states are going to continue to legalize same-sex marriage, probably slowly, until we get to the point where same-sex couples can marry no matter where they are in the United States. Ten years ago, Massachusetts was almost revolutionary, now the practice is common place. In another ten years, will prohibiting gay marriage seem as archaic as the ban on interracial marriage?

Those questions, especially what will happen in 2016, are difficult to answer. There’s a chance that it will still be a topic of conversation, after all, GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz had a strong reaction to the news of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday. He took issue with the court, saying:

This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislature.

Ted Cruz essentially said that it should be to the voters to decide whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. He won the straw poll at the Values Voters Summit, held in Washington D.C. just a few weeks ago. The Values Voter Summit this year apparently focused heavily on anti-Muslim and anti-ISIS rhetoric, but there was still some LGBT-rights bashing as well. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was present, and it worked hard to try to convince attendees that the fight against same-sex marriage was by no means over. And some of the speakers did wax poetic about traditional marriage — Rick Santorum, for example, made an appearance.

But the question is, is the Values Voter Summit still representative of a large chunk of the Republican Party? And that’s not just a question that I, as an observer, am trying to answer. It seems to be a question that the Republican Party itself is having difficulty with.

The Republican Party is in a tough place — an issue that it’s worked on for a very long time is no longer really an issue. While it’s tough to tell whether or not the Party will still put any focus on the issue in the 2016 elections, it’s a choice that it is going to have to make for itself. But as more states move toward legalizing gay marriage and more Americans show their support, it will be a difficult choice to make.

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-Sex Marriage Legal in Most States: What Does the GOP Do Now? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s officially October, which means that next month is election month, which means that shit is officially getting weird! Now, the Republican party has in recent years had a hard time connecting with a few groups of voters — namely women, young people, and minorities. In response, they’ve tried to switch some things up, and I do applaud them for that. But they might want to refine their plan a little more, because some of these ads created by Republican groups have just been plain weird. Without further ado, here are the three Republican ads I’ve seen in the past few weeks that have made me scratch my head.

Republicans are People Too

I don’t even fully count this one as any sort of political ad, but rather a…Public Service Announcement?

This spot is literally just a reminder to be nicer to Republicans. Which is nice I guess, but I feel like if the Republican party is at the point where it needs to remind potential voters that it’s composed of humans, the phrase “losing battle” may apply. The group that posted this video on YouTube was called “Republicans are People Too” and posted it with the disclosure:

It seems like it’s okay to say mean things about someone just because they’re Republican. That isn’t right. Before you write another mean post about Republicans, remember Republicans are people, too.

In a super awkward turn of events, it turns out that the “Republicans” in the video are actually stock photos. Which means I’m left with some terribly pressing question: do real Republicans actually use Macs???

Overall, this spot was a nice attempt at creating polite political discourse, but it came across a bit odd and sort of like aliens trying to communicate after observing Earth for just a few weeks.

Break up With Barack Obama

Americans for Shared Prosperity released this weird and creepy exercise in sexism a couple weeks ago.

First of all, why does he have to be her boyfriend? The message is perfectly fine! This spot is saying that she doesn’t like Obama anymore because he’s been bad for foreign policy and the economy and those are incredibly valid arguments! Why does it have to be framed like he’s an abusive boyfriend? It’s just distracting from the actual point of the ad!

To be fair, this isn’t a new tactic, during the 2012 elections, Lena Dunham starred in a weird Obama ad that compared voting for the first time to losing your virginity, and it was similarly weird and creepy.

I get that it’s supposed to be provocative or go viral or something, but it’s just weird. Also it makes it seem like you shouldn’t vote if you aren’t 100 percent sure about a candidate, which is not how democracy works.

But I digress. According to the head of Americans for Shared Prosperity, John Jordan, the goal of the ad was “to communicate with women voters in a way that outside groups and campaigns haven’t. The purpose of this is to treat women voters more like adults.” With all due respect Mr. Jordan, if you’d like to treat me like an adult, talk to me about the issues. Don’t make a creepy ad pretending that the president is my abusive boyfriend.

Say Yes to the Candidate

This ad is hands down my favorite, though. Similar to the ad above, it tries to relate to young female voters through something we can understand — DRESSES!!! Created by the College Republican National Committee for use by Rick Scott in the Florida gubernatorial race, it creates a metaphor between the candidates and dresses, say yes to the dress style.

Gag.

This is the one that has hit the news over the last few days, but the CRNC also made others for tough races, with just different candidates/facts inserted in.

There’s a big disconnect here with these three ads. The first tries to convince me that I need to realize that the Republican Party has a ton of diversity, but the next two try to target me, as a young woman, with apparently the only two things I’m interested in and can understand — boys and pretty dresses.

It is genuinely good that the Republican Party has realized that it needs to do something to win over the type of voters who have traditionally not voted for them. I hope it ends up leading to higher levels of discourse, compromise, and understanding. But these kind of ads are not the way to do it.

—

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 [Ryan Heaney 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 Republicans May Be ‘People Too,’ But They Sure Make Narrowminded Ads appeared first on Law Street.