Midterm Results: Are they Ready for Hillary in 2016?

The polls of the Midterm elections are out, and as anyone who was paying attention knows . . . the Democrats did not exactly do well. They lost 13 House seats and nine Senate seats to the Republicans, creating a new Republican majority in the Senate.

Clinton campaigning with Coakley in October

Clinton campaigning with Coakley in October

This does not look good for Hillary Clinton, who campaigned with many of the Democrats that ended up losing in the Midterm Elections. Our own potential governor Martha Coakley ended up losing to Charlie Baker, even after Clinton adamantly campaigned with her. This rejection of Democrats, as well as her association with the Obama Administration, will end up being a challenge for Hillary to win the White House in 2016.

Fortunately for Hillary, like her husband who also had to deal with a Republican majority congress, if history repeats itself she will end up coming out on top. Republican’s over-abuse of their power in the 1990s, with the dragged out Lewinsky scandals hurt them greatly in the Midterm 1998 elections. They ended up losing zero Senate seats (which is unheard of as they should have gained seats) and five seats to the Democrats in the House. Although there doesn’t have to be another impeachment trial for the Democrats be supported by the public, any type of over-extremism by the Republican controlled Senate could end up helping the Democratic 2016 candidate to a tight victory.

It is very rare for there to be twelve years of a party’s rule in the executive branch, the last one being Reagan for eight years and Bush for four. Anything could tip the odds in a presidential candidates favor for 2016, the actions of the Midterm election winners will most definitely be a factor.

Posted in Katie | Tagged , , , | 883 Comments

Aim at 2016

The result of 2014 election shows that 2014 is a good year for the Republican Party. But what does the result of 2014 elections tell us about the 2016 Presidential election? As some of my classmates have pointed out, the result of 2014 election is not in a clear correlation with the potential result of 2016 election. However, the 2014 election does convey some important messages to the public, and these messages will affect the 2016 presidential election in a indirect way.

As I suggested in my last blog entry, the exit polling shows neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic party is worshiped by the public. The result of the election is more anti-Obama than pro-Republican. People have lost their faith for the leaders in both White House and the Capitol hill, and this has been proved by the lowest voter turnout in 72 years. So what the public wants in 2016 might be an appealing leader who is more practical to dissolve the deadlock between two parties. So who will be the right choice for the future of America?

Although Hillary Clinton hasn’t announced her decision about whether or not to run for president in 2016, it is clear that most media consider Hillary the frontrunner of the Democratic party. Thus once she makes her announcement, there is a very big chance that she will become the presidential nominee and will compete in the final round. Overall, Hillary is an experienced politician. For domestic policy, she has been the senator from New York State for 8 years; As the former United States Secretary of State under Obama’s administration, she accumulated a lot of foreign policy experiences, which were reflected in her autobiography, The Hard Choice. These experiences will make her an attractive candidate. Moreover, Clinton will become a well-funded candidate if she runs: according to CNN Politics, with 31% support, she is the top choice for millionaires. However, there is a bad news for Hillary. Since she reentered the domestic partisan policy, her favorable rate continues to drop. This might be evidence that people don’t feel confident about her on domestic policy.

For the GOP side, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul are two possible candidates who attract voters’ eyes. Will they become the right choice for American people? Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, is the younger brother of former president George W. Bush. Just a few hours ago, he announced on twitter that he is going to “actively explore” a 2016 run. Since Jeb Bush’s political stance is more neutral and more moderate than many in his party, he might be a good candidate for the general election and the more practical choice for the country once he wins the election. However, considering the more ideological characteristic of the primary election, some political pundits doubt he will survive in the first half of the battles. Thus Jeb Bush openly states he is willing to “lose the primary to win the general.” Will Jeb Bush stick to his promise or will he encounter Mitt Romney’s problem? It is not clear. However, what we know is If Jeb conquers all the difficulties in the primaries and becomes Hillary’s rival, people are going to choose between two people with political legacies.

Rand Paul is another interesting choice. This Kentucky senator, Rand Paul, is the son of Ron Paul, who is a purist and a libertarian in the U.S politics. Although Rand Paul rejects the label of libertarian, some of his ideologies are appealing to people, especially some young adults. For example, on foreign policy issues, he rejects the idea that the U.S has the responsibility to intervene in some of the disputes. However, his ideology is more extreme than other candidates, so some moderate and liberal voters will not believe that he is the one who is capable of solving the deadlock in government. Moreover, Rand Paul is now facing a challenge: Since he already announced that he will seek the re-election to U.S Senate in 2016, if he decides to run for president, he will become the one of the few politicians in history to run for both seats in one election. Running for both seats will consume large amount of money and energy, and this might be too overwhelming for a candidate.

Posted in Jacy | Tagged , , , , | 27 Comments

Pope Francis’ influence on voters

Pope Francis has begun expressing disapproval for the politicization of the church and is looking for a softer approach to the traditionally problematic issues like gay marriage, contraception, and immigration. John Allen, associate editor of a Catholic news site says “Pope Francis has discouraged conservatives and emboldened moderates.” He goes on to recall when Cardinal Raymond Burke denies communion to Democrat John Kerry or any other Catholic politician in support of legalized abortion, and notes “During the mid-terms this year we say no threats to deny communion to candidates and no pastoral letters from bishops which made it impossible for Catholics to vote Democrat.” Allen believes that “the bishops will keep a robust pro-life agenda but with less of a rhetorical edge.”

What might this mean for our country (that has a clear separation of church and state)?

Well, in recent elections the Catholic vote has leaned more towards Democrats – Obama carried Catholics 50% to 48% in 2012 – and Pope Francis’ influence may accelerate and accentuate this trend.

Seeing the behavior of voters shift from the influence of their religious affiliation is not a new phenomenon, and certainly not one that will go away any time soon. As seen in the following graph, religion plays a role in the make up of the parties and it can even be broken up into frequency of worship within the party.

Screen Shot 2014-12-16 at 1.04.56 PM

Posted in Abigail D. | Tagged , , , | 14 Comments

Smithies in Politics

As the 2016 election rapidly approaches, one of the lawmakers under the national spotlight is California’s Barbara Boxer. Boxer, at the age of 74 has been in the Senate since 1992 (the so-called “Year of the Woman”, serving 4 terms. Although she has yet to officially announce her retirement, she is not fundraising, which is a pretty clear indication that she will not seek to hold the seat. As a result, California Democrats (and, to a lesser extent, Republicans) are speculating about who could take over the seat. One of many names that has been mentioned is Jane Harman, former Congresswoman from CA’s 36th district, and Smith College alumna from the class of 1966.

Ms. Harman (who I have actually met and heard speak) has not declared her intention to run for the Senate spot (as doing so before Ms. Boxer announced retirement would be in bad taste), but given her 18 years of previous Congressional service, she seems to be well qualified for the position.

Were Ms. Harman to win the seat, she would join fellow Smithie Tammy Baldwin (’84) in the Senate. Ms. Baldwin served in the House between 1999 and 2013, and since her election to the Senate in 2012, she is the only openly gay Senator in our nation’s history.

Other Smithies in notable government positions include Sherry Rehman ’85, a member of the Pakastani National Assembly, and Farah Pandith ’90, Special Representative to Muslim Countries for the US State Department.

Posted in Nell | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

The “Govern” in “Government” is a Misnomer…

note: I just realized that this post was never published, because I accidentally saved it as a draft. Oopsies! For reference, it was written on November 7th, which is why the analysis may seem to be a few weeks behind…

Now that the midterms are over, most political analysts and commentators have moved right on to arguing about 2016. This is not to say that we haven’t heard about it previously (Hillary: will she or won’t she?, the continuation of the Bush legacy, can Ted Cruz run even though he was born in Canada? etc. etc. etc.), but now, just days after a record-low number of Americans cast ballots, the next presidential campaign is in full swing. While the idea of a perpetual campaign is certainly nothing new, especially when it comes to the short terms of House members, its effects seem to be getting especially acute. The conversations about Obama’s predecessor didn’t even wait until after inauguration– pundits began talking about what his victory meant for Hillary mere minutes after his electoral college tally reached 270!

So what are the effects of this constant “looking forward” on the efforts of legislators? More and more, it seems, possible nominees have to be concerned about where they position themselves on controversial issues, lest it ruin their chances for a future presidential run. Thus, governing is less and less about legislating, and more and more about re-election. Legislative actions are aimed at showing symbolic support for potential demographic groups, rather than representing real-time constituents.

While frustration about this phenomenon is hardly new, I think it says something about the state of our elections when the Daily Show doesn’t really have to exaggerate to highlight its ridiculousness.

Posted in Nell, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Electoral Politics Through the Lens of “Parks and Recreation”

Warning: This post contains spoilers about the show!

As the semester draws to a close, I thought I’d have a little fun continuing our earlier discussion of the media and talk about one of my favorite politically themed TV shows. Throughout the semester, the consistent incorporation of media into our lectures and lessons has been one of my favorite parts of this class. I think that connecting concepts about electoral politics to popular media, particularly in the areas of parody and comedy, can really help drive home important points and make learning about these topics even more engaging. I have recently come to find that this value can stretch beyond soft news outlets like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (which is sadly in its final days as the star prepares to take over CBS’s late night talk show from David Letterman). When I started watching the TV show Parks and Recreation, a “mockumentary” sitcom tracking governmental wheeling and dealing in the rural community of Pawnee, Indiana, I had no idea that I’d be drawing parallels between the show and this course’s content throughout essentially every episode. My love for the leading lady Amy Poehler drew me to the show, but the enduring real world relevance of her incredible performance (and the show’s addictive plotlines and general hilariousness) kept me watching.

http://sotopodcast.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/parks-and-recreation.jpg

Poehler plays Leslie Knope, an enthusiastic Parks and Recreation department employee with a pipe dream of becoming president one day, but her initial incompetence proves more than cringe-worthy. I nearly quit watching during the first season because of how horribly I felt women in government were being portrayed since such pop culture phenomena can be legitimately damaging in the real world (if you don’t believe me, watch the amazing documentary Miss Representation). However, Emily Nussbaum points out in her New Yorker review of Parks and Rec that Leslie’s bumbling during the show’s early episodes “[reflects] national anxieties about female political power,” where her “prim know-it-all whose ambitions were the butt of the joke.” In a nation where women are systematically underrepresented, reflected by the fact that if the current rate of female political gains continues, it will take over 500 years to achieve gender parity at all levels of government, these are salient issues that the show asks us to consider.

Thankfully, Leslie gets herself together, and as her character develops, she achieves personal and political success. However, her journey is not without its ups and downs, and she and peers often handle their sticky situations in a ridiculous and entertaining manner. Still, between the lines of each preposterous blunder and heartwarming moment lays real-life commentary about American political culture. Particularly, the show’s treatment of Leslie’s campaign for her local city council rings true to many aspects of modern campaigns. First, the show reflects the public’s failure to focus on the real issues of the campaign, such as the candidates’ experience, qualifications, and issue positions. Instead, they are swayed by sensational media coverage and get caught up scandal after scandal perpetuated by the local reporters. For example, the “gotcha” media relentlessly pursues Leslie in a “birther”-type scandal, claiming that she was not born in Pawnee, as she insists (it turns out that she never knew she was born one town over…). Check out the sensationalism embraced on the local talk show “Pawnee Today,” which even has it’s own “gotcha” dancers.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nz2ZC_60g8[/youtube]

The most damaging scandal takes the form of Leslie’s forbidden relationship with her boss, which goes public and substantially damages her standing in the polls. This event reflects the public’s obsession with candidates’ personal lives, as we discussed terms of Gary Hart and Bill Clinton. Thankfully, Leslie overcomes the scandal with Bill Clinton style tact and her own personal grace, along with a little help from her friends, to remain in the race.

Throughout the race, her well-funded primary opponent’s campaign capitalizes on such scandal making, doing their best to smear Leslie’s image. However, the final debate between the candidates becomes a turning point, just as in real world elections, when Leslie outsmarts and outperforms him, along with the rest of her absurd cast of opponents. She especially rocks the concluding statement (check it out below!).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JhqMsxH9-g[/youtube]

Leslie narrowly wins the election by just twenty votes, and then encounters more real world obstacles as an elected official. As the only woman on the city council, Leslie finds herself blocked from taking meaningful action at every turn and falls victim to institutionalized sexism. She’s sexually harassed by her colleagues, blackmailed, manipulated, and publically ridiculed. But she persists; from personally performing community services she can’t get funded to filibustering on roller skates for hours on end to prevent unfair legislation that would restrict voting rights from passing.

Such obstacles particularly reflect one key issue in the American electoral system, where candidates can win by narrow margins in our first-past-the-post elections. When a candidate wins an election still without the support of many, many voters, she struggles to gain legitimacy for her regime and lacks the power to govern. She works hard for her community, but Leslie’s policies prove too progressive for a conservative small town, and she tragically loses a recall election and is removed from office. I’m not quite done with Season 6 on Netflix, so I’m not sure what happens next, but I have faith that the relentless Leslie will bounce back! (Also, stay tuned for the 7th and final season, coming this January on NBC!)

http://darlingmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/tumblr_l5isyyghA61qzmg2lo1_500.png

Last, I think it’s important to note that the show has made enough of an impact to draw cameos from real politicians, including Senators John McCain, Barbara Boxer, and Olympia Snow, and even Vice President Joe Biden! Additionally, perhaps it even offers some vital political lessons, such as in championing Leslie’s ability to reach across the aisle and work with her staunch Libertarian boss Ron Swanson. For all its fun, Parks and Recreation confronts real issues in electoral politics in the context of small town America. And when these messages come to us with a laugh from our funny and inspiring fictional feminist hero, they can be a little easier to swallow, and make a real difference in educating, while entertaining, the voting public.

 

Posted in Anna C. | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Will the “dutchie” pass?

legalize-cannabis-legalize-marijuana-legalize-weed-thcfinder

The question whether the “dutchie” will be legally passed “pon the left-hand side” is a hot topic for the 2016 presidential election. The public is pushing for it to happen with the majority of Americans supporting legalization. Activists are hoping 2016 will be the year for recreational marijuana legalization. Already, many activists are pushing the ballot issue in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Maine, Montana, and Nevada and striking deals with candidates by promising the youth vote in return for the candidate supporting legalization. Greater youth turnout seems to correlate with legalization referendums as seen in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, where voting by 18 to 29-year olds increased 5 to 12%. As determined by surveys, 18 to 34-year olds tend to favor legalization by as much as 64% whilst only 31% of 65-year olds and up favor it. The legalization issue might be a way for Democrats to attract more young voters as the Democrat party is more likely to support the issue. However, the issue may not be as significant in deciding a Democratic or Republican win in the presidential election as only Arizona and Nevada can be considered as swing states amongst the states considering legalization. Out of the possible presidential contenders, Democrat Hilary Clinton seems to be doubtful when it comes to legalization and Republican Rand Paul has only mentioned supporting softer punishments for marijuana, surprisingly given his libertarian tendencies.

Posted in Natasha | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Will Catholic bishops be less outspoken in the 2016 presidential election?

As far as determining the effect of the 2014 midterm election on the 2016 presidential election in regards to who will win, not much can be said. It seems impossible to determine which candidate will win based on the recent midterm election results given the two have little correlation. However, more can be said in regards to the Catholic say in the upcoming presidential election.

http://thewardrobedoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/o-pope-francis-facebook.jpg

Pope Francis

At times, the Catholic bishops have been belligerent in imposing their religious dogma during elections such as fighting against the contraception provisions of Obamacare and same-sex marriage. However, the bishops remained surprisingly silent during the recent midterm election. This silence can be explained by the influence of moderate Pope Francis, who disapproves of the politicization of the church. Instead, he promotes a more moderate and peaceful handling of hot-button issues such as same-sex marriage and contraception. On top of that, the Pope fired American Cardinal Raymond Burke from his position of head of the Vatican’s highest court days before the midterms. Burke is known for having denied communion to John Kerry and any other Catholic politician who supported legalized abortion and for sending out a pastoral letter urging Catholics to not vote for pro-abortion candidates during the 2004 presidential election. It is clear that clerics do have quite an influence on presidential elections as seen in 2004. In 2004, 52 percent of Catholics voted for Bush and only 47 percent voted for John Kerry, a Roman Catholic, who supports abortion much to the dismay of the Catholic bishops. However, some say that the reason behind the silence of the bishops has more to do with the fact that little issues Catholics hold to heart were at play during the 2014 midterm election. For the 2016 presidential elections, bishops may speak out more than they did for the midterms especially on issues such as social justice and immigration and whether a Catholic candidate such as Joe Biden decides to run. However, they may voice their concerns with a more moderate tone to please Pope Francis. In the end, it can be predicted that as long as Pope Francis is in power the Catholic political input in the 2016 election will be reduced as it was for the 2014 midterm elections.

Posted in Natasha | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Half of Senators Who Voted For Obamacare Were Not Re-Elected

With evolving technology and the increase use of social media platforms, Americans (especially younger generations) are receiving information on election news from simple devices such as their cellphones. The Pew Research Center recently released a poll which stated that 28 percent of voters used their “mobile devices” to follow the 2014 midterm election. This is more than double the percentage that was utilizing this tactic four years ago. This has lead to politicians creating an online presence to boost followers. According the Washington Examiner, 90 percent of House members use these services along with the entire Senate. One of the major issues that the media focused on was Obamacare, a newly reformed healthcare system through the Democratic party. It received an incredulous amount of negative attention in the news. The Wall Street Journal released an article stating that it “isn’t working” and that “That’s the news in the recent Health and Human Services release of the results from the first two year of ACO experience under the Affordable Care Act”. Everywhere people turn, The Affordable Care Act is being critiqued. In fact, 50% of senators who voted in favor of the act were not re-elected for Senate.

The issue is that many voters are misinformed about Obamacare. Comedian Jimmy Kimmel released a video asking people which they approved of more, the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare? All said that they approved of the Affordable Care Act more than Obamacare, even though they are exactly the same thing. When asked to explain why, many made up reasons on the spot, clearly from sources which they may have overheard but not necessarily researched.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/UMSKO4xCVTM[/youtube]

This raises the question of whether the media is properly covering information which they release to the public? Whether it is moral for politicians to portray themselves on social media as relatable instead of simply stating what they stand for? Can citizens be left to their own devices to receive information only from skimming online sources? Was the result of the midterm elections due to voters not agreeing with Democratic ideals, or simply because the media was disagreeing with their policy changes?

Posted in Meghan | Tagged , , , , , , | 28 Comments

Racial disparities in voter turnout

According to a recent article from Nate Silver’s web site Fivethirtyeight.com, there is fairly low voter turnout in the midterm election among black adults, compared to white adults. A racialized gap was also found between Democrat and Republican voters. This is problematic, especially considering current issues in this country. There are still barriers to suffrage for black Americans in many areas of the country, both official and legal and unofficial and civilian-based. If one’s vote is to be interpreted as one’s voice, a vote is an important thing to have and blacks should be encouraged and perhaps incentivized to vote. This low turnout rate should be examined and the government should be concerned. If equitable representation is to be achieved, all groups must do their darndest to get out and vote.

racegap11

The racial gap was narrowest in 2008, when Barack Obama won the presidency for the first time, while the gap was widest in 1994 when there was about a thirteen point difference between white adults and black adults, with whites turning out at about 50.1 percent. Though in 2008 the electorate was still nearly three quarters white, the Democrats still had a significant average. 

Posted in Vanessa | Tagged , , | 21 Comments