Hillary & Millionaires

Posted on December 10, 2014 by lshaffer

Hillary Rodham Clinton

In a recent CNBC survey, a majority of millionaires (those with $1 million or more in investable assets), would pick Hillary Clinton as president as of right now. 31% of millionaires plan to cote for Clinton, and the next runner up is Jeb Bush, with 18%. Clinton was also very popular among Independent millionaires and 23% of them said she is their choice for the 2016 presidential election. Since most Clinton won primarily with Democrats and Bush won primarily with Republicans, the reason Hillary’s percentage of millionaire voters is higher is due to her 8% lead among Independents.

The survey polled 500 people, evenly split between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents- 93% of whom said they voted in the midterm election. (an interactive graph of the results, visit http://www.cnbc.com/id/102253477#.)

18%
  Jeb Bush
14%
  Chris Christie
31%
  Hillary Clinton
11%
  Bernie Sanders
8%
  Scott Walker
8%
  Elizabeth Warren
10%
  Other

Some of the other questions millionaires were asked about were: What are the most important issues or the 2016 election (most popular answers: taxes and government spending); What is the top priority for the next congress (most popular answers: corporate tax reform, immigration reform, and repealing the affordable care act). Note: Immigration and repealing the Affordable Care Act was not supported by both parties even though it was the average response listed. They are not actually what all millionaires want the next congress to focus on; they are just what Republicans really really want the next congress to focus on. The large number of Republicans who gave this response offset the low number of Democrats who gave it.

While this is so very fascinating, I must warn you of the flaws in this survey. First of all, 500 people could not be split evenly among 3 parties since 500 divided by 3 is 166.667. Secondly, 93% of the millionaires “said” they voted in the midterm elections, and as we learned in class, many people lie when they are asked the question of whether they voted or not in an election. Also, the questions they asked produced broad topics and it is possible that Republicans and Democrats alike responded “taxes and government spending” for very different reasons and not because they actually agree on something.

ON a side note- for some funny Hillary Clinton potential snapchats, visit http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonmichaelpoff/snapchats-from-hillary-clinton (Do it- its Hillaryous)

Posted in Lauren | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Money! Money! And More Money!

Posted on December 10, 2014 by Corey

As Capital Hill lawmakers decided, a small raise in the campaign finance limits would come into effect. I think the fact that the Republicans now hold the majority in both House of Representatives and Senate allows them to pass this more easily, and the Democrats might have given in a little bit in order to prevent the Congress from shutting down. Anyways, as a result of the provision, party committees can now accept up to $97,200 from each individual donors in order to pay for the party nominating conventions. I found a report on NPR that did a little calculation for us: “The $97,200-per-year year limit comes to $388,800 for a four-year presidential election cycle. If the new provision had been available in 2012, just 94 donors could have matched the public financing for both conventions”(Overby). I think these are really shocking numbers, and have interesting implications for future campaigns. 

election-cost-chart

First of all, US campaigns are EXPENSIVE, and this provision very likely foreshadows the 2016 presidential election as a money game more than ever. Now that the limitations on individual contribution to party campaign committees is higher, their power in the future campaigns will increase as well. If the theme of future campaigns becomes a competition for more money, party candidates might adopt campaign strategies that focus more on fundraising and less on issue advocacy and policy related content.

Screen Shot 2014-12-10 at 9.58.26The chart on the left is contributions to Obama’s presidential campaign in 2012, and on the right is Mitt Romney’s. As the chart shows, a higher percentage of fundings for the Republican candidate was contributed by big money donors, and he also relied more on contributions made by PACs’ than Democratic candidate.

Secondly, the passage of this change to the campaign finance laws is likely to benefit the GOP more than the Democratic Party. According to Russ Choma’s article, while the Democratic Party has been relying on small money donors, which are people that donate $200 or less, the Republican Party has been targeting the big money contributors. In that sense, the pass of this provision would allow the big money donors to give even more, while leave the small donors unaffected by much; therefore, it is clearly giving the Republicans more advantages over the Democrats. Also, the super rich people, who have the ability to contribute more, are likely to have more political influence, and the candidates will probably pay more attention to the interests of these huge money donors than to the rest of the voters.

147227_600

Finally, I think that as the limits on how much money party committees can raise, the campaigns in the future are surely going to be more expensive. This adds to the public fear of potential corruption. It also hinders the democratic value of the American political system, because this increasing financial competition has the potential of preventing qualified candidates from running. Also, because this provision mainly targets the two major parties, it hurts third party candidates and independent candidates. If the campaign becomes all about money, third party candidates will face even greater challenge because they lack the ability to compete with the major parties when the financial gap widens.

Posted in Corey | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Interrogation Gone Wrong

Posted on December 10, 2014 by kbuie

The Senate released thousands of pages of documentation from the the Central Intelligence Agency that confirms the use of extreme interrogation tactics in the detention of suspected terrorists after 9/11. Not only are the tactics controversial, but it is also being suggested that the CIA intentionally mislead the Bush administration about the nature of their interrogation methods. The mountain of evidence released yesterday includes specific photographs of water boarding equipment in a location where the CIA previously stated, “water boarding never took place.” The report also details the use of sleep and food deprivation as well as sexually violative methods to obtain intelligence information. Instances like these further promote distrust of the government by highlighting the lack of oversight and accountability in governmental agencies across the board.

The Senate report suggests that the use of many extreme interrogation methods did not elicit the desired results yet were continually used in the future. “The Senate report found that the detention and interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah and dozens of other prisoners were ineffective in giving the government “unique” intelligence information that the C.I.A. or other intelligence agencies could not get from other means.”

Senator John McCain of Arizona took a contrary, but unsurprising, stance on the release of the report yesterday. As a prison of war himself, McCain advocated the release of the report unlike the vast majority of his conservative counterparts.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs6giMDejPE[/youtube]

 

Screen Shot 2014-12-10 at 7.50.40 PM

The effects of the report are further polarizing conversations in the media this week; Democrats seeking transparency while Republicans are concerned about the international safety ramifications of the report.  Republicans like Dick Cheney fervently defended the use of torture tactics in interrogation while many Democrats are outraged by the information. Colorado Democrat Mark Udall called upon the president to “purge his administration” and start anew. While a “purge” is extremely unlikely, it would be nice to see an overhaul or reform of some type, ensuring safeguards are in place to prevent these incidents. In situations like these, the line between interrogation and torture is blurred and now that blurred line is a partisan issue.

Posted in Kaitlin | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why Isn’t There More Buzz Around Rand Paul 2016?, or, Anyone But Bush (Please!)

Posted on December 10, 2014 by esl13

With the 2016 election looming in the distance, it seems that the conversation has largely been focused around the central question of: “Hillary vs. ???” It seems the playing field for Democrats has been essentially dominated by Clinton. The potential for a redemption story always beloved in the eyes of the media narrative seems to have already crystallized around Hillary: the formerly mocked, spurned, and scorned wife of a somewhat — uh — lascivious past president, criticized by right-wingers across the country for capitalizing on her husband’s success to try to further her own agenda, eventually proving her impressive capability to lead despite her multitude of detractors through eight years in the Senate and another four as the United States Secretary of State, ending up widely renowned for her diplomatic abilities. A champion of women’s rights and an undeniably ambitious and surefooted politician, Hillary is clearly the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination (and, as it may not be too hard to tell from the way it’s being described right now, for this writer as well). 

via http://www.truthdig.com/images/cartoonuploads/hillary_500.jpg

via http://www.truthdig.com/images/cartoonuploads/hillary_500.jpg

Already, lists of potential Republican nominees are being circulated through the news media (with Bloomberg leading the pack with an impressive 26 potential candidates), and, as far as this analyst can tell, there are a few names that seem to be really resonating at the moment: Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and — could it really be? — Mitt Romney, with references as well to Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, and Rick Santorum. In some articles, the is he libertarian or isn’t he? candidate Rand Paul is mentioned, though opinions vary drastically about the viability of his candidacy (“Rand Paul Isn’t Leader of the Pack,” Bloomberg, 12/5/14, vs “The ‘Why Not Me?’ Race for the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2016,” which lists Paul as #1 most likely out of 10 candidates to secure Republican nomination, Washington Post, 12/5/14). Much of the hypothesizing I’ve heard from my peers predicts a Clinton/Bush faceoff for the fall of 2016, a possibility which leaves me searching desperately for some kind of alternative — or could it really be that our country has, in fact, become an oligarchy, with presidential terms merely passed on generationally from brother to brother or husband to wife? Certainly there have to be more options for viable political leaders than a literal lineage of straight, wealthy, white men. (A slight tangent here: could someone please explain to me why, exactly, the Bush name is considered to be any sort of boon to Jeb’s campaign, with a father who was voted out of office after a single term in the White House and, of course, a brother potentially considered among the most ignominious and clueless presidents in American history?) (Again, not like this author has a partisan bias or anything.)

via: http://www.golfdigest.com/images/magazine/2009-02/gwar01_081226bush.jpg

via: http://www.golfdigest.com/images/magazine/2009-02/gwar01_081226bush.jpg

Initially spurred by this impulse, I started looking into the other Republican nominees, seeing who could realistically secure the party’s nomination without falling inside the Bush clan. Huckabee, Cruz, and Walker all seem to be far too extreme to be widely considered frontrunners. Chris Christie was (I believe) ruined politically by the bridge scandal which broke around this time last year, an event which painted the politician as a despotic bully. I’d be stunned if Mitt Romney were even willing to run again (the 2014 documentary Mitt was surprisingly informative and un-biased, in many ways), but I also believe the American public is largely tired of him, with a flip-flopping reputation and an extreme move to the right in his attempt to win the popular vote (not to mention the whole “binders full of women” comment, sure to resurface if Hillary has anything to say about it).

via http://www.truthdig.com/images/cartoonuploads/131284_600.jpeg

via http://www.truthdig.com/images/cartoonuploads/131284_600.jpeg

 As the results of the midterms started to come in with the general media reading being that people were voting fiscally conservative, socially liberal. So, then, my question: why not Rand Paul 2016? Certainly, he wouldn’t be getting my vote, but wouldn’t he be a logical choice for the Republican party to back? As early as August, Paul was writing op-eds for Time magazine about the protests in Ferguson, arguing for the demilitarization of the police force, and, while not advocating for gay marriage, Paul has expressed that he feels it’s an issue outside of government regulation, one which should be left to citizens to decide. Rand Paul is the likely the easy favorite in highly contested swing states like Iowa and New Hampshire, normally significant deciding states to determine which politicians choose to stay in the presidential race and which do not. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (who seems to be a recurring figure in these blog posts, incidentally) has already thrown his support behind the candidate, also a senator for Kentucky and a significant player in McConnell’s race against Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in this most recent midterm. Again, I would like to re-state that I personally would not like to vote for Paul, who would likely slash close to all of the social welfare, education, or environmental government programs that I think are essential to improving daily life for the average American citizen. Rather, my fundamental question is instead: why aren’t more people talking about Rand Paul as a presidential possibility?

via: http://www.randpaulreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/msnbc-rand-paul.png

via: http://www.randpaulreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/msnbc-rand-paul.png

In August of this year, Aaron Blake wrote for The Washington Post that part of Paul’s popularity problem is “that no well-known labels seem to fit him well. While his dad, Ron Paul, is a pretty straight-line libertarian, that’s not really who the younger Paul is. He’s not an establishment Republican, a neo-conservative, an arch-conservative or a moderate Republican.” As of late November, RealClearPolitics has Paul in 4th for the Republican nomination with 10.8% of the popular vote, tied with Chris Christie and behind both Paul Ryan (not even discussed in this post, although many have speculated he’ll sit out this race and appreciate his time chairing the prestigious Ways and Means committee, or wait to see what Mitt Romney does) and Jeb Bush, who takes 14.3% of the vote.

via: http://yellowhammernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Republican-Presidential-Contenders.jpg

via: http://yellowhammernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Republican-Presidential-Contenders.jpg

Since our class has shown that, statistically, most of the invisible primary buzz this early out into election season largely neglects to mention the candidate who ends up taking the presidential nomination, and given the ways in which it seems Paul could frame his platform to appeal to the emerging electorate approving economic conservatism and social progressivism, I think it may be time for pundits to start re-evaluating the legitimacy of his campaign. At least in the eyes of this analyst, with some strategic campaigning, Rand Paul may become a more prominent figure in the press than he’s been so far. It’ll be interesting to see where this campaign goes.

via: http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/d8f04843422dcff30acd2aad7221592b44cd4532/c=2281-1275-4303-2789&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/02/09//1391990809000-AP-Republicans-Debate.jpg

via: http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/d8f04843422dcff30acd2aad7221592b44cd4532/c=2281-1275-4303-2789&r=x404&c=534×401/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/02/09//1391990809000-AP-Republicans-Debate.jpg

Posted in Izzy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

International Students and Immigration Reform

Posted on December 10, 2014 by mpark26

As an American citizen who has spent almost all of my life abroad, I consider myself an international student in the Smith community. Although I don’t have to worry about applying for visas when coming back to school, the vast majority of my friends are complete international students who constantly have to worry about their visa status and the possibilities of them getting jobs right after graduation. Recently, there has been an article in the New Republic that has been gaining much attention amongst international students on Facebook.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

“When President Obama announced his executive action on immigration in November, millions of undocumented people welcomed the expanded protections that the reform offered. What grabbed headlines abroad, however, were minor tweaks to visa policies—revisions that are likely to affect as many as 256,000 foreign workers in the U.S. But these changes don’t come close to making sense of the immigration system for foreign students, who study in American universities and who are kicked out before they have a chance to work in or contribute to U.S. society.”

Today, there are around 886,000 international students who are studying at American universities. What is interesting about this demographic is that more than two-thirds of these international students pay tuition with their own personal funds. Since undergraduate international students aren’t eligible for federal financial aid, they come to America with “flush bank accounts,” and colleges consider these students “walking ATMs.” Especially public universities that don’t have big budgets find these international students especially attractive, as they pay most of the tuition out of their own pockets (or their parents’ pockets).

But while American universities welcome these international students with open arms, US immigration law shoves them out the door after they graduate. “In fact, even before they are handed F-1 student visas, international students must prove that they intend to return to their home countries upon finishing their degrees.” 

President Obama’s proposed immigration reforms will loosen restrictions on H-1B work visas, making it viable for dependent spouses of visa-holders to obtain work permits and will make it easier for visa-holders to change jobs during their residency in the US. Yet this reform does not directly address the problem at hand. Activists are calling for greater immigration reform; some are pushing for the elimination of green card limits, and are calling for easier, clearer paths toward permanent residency. However, this power only lies within Congress. And with a Republican congress, international students are wondering and worrying what their future entails. 

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

Should Democrats Give Up on the Deep South?

Posted on December 9, 2014 by jcomeau

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2014-12-07/AP/Senate_Louisiana_Election-07856.jpg&w=1484

After Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu’s loss against Republican Bill Cassidy in Louisiana’s runoff election, the Democrats officially have no representatives in the Senate from the Deep South.  After several decades of a strong Republican hold in the Deep South, it now seems like a lost cause for Democrats, and like they may be better off not trying there at all.  Indeed, with the exception of Florida, this has been the case for most Democratic Presidential candidates within the last few elections.

There are many Democrats who have long seen this coming, and now are coming toterms with it.  For example, Michael Tomasky of Political Wire said, “Forget about it. Forget about the whole fetid place. Write it off. Let the GOP have it and run it and turn it into Free-Market Jesus Paradise. The Democrats don’t need it anyway.” While calling the South a “Free-Market Jesus Paradise” may be a little cynical, Tomasky has a point when he says “The Democrats don’t need it anyway.”  After all, this is not a new trend, and there have been Democratic Presidents elected despite not receiving one electoral vote from the South. Furthermore, the Democrats have a distinct advantage when it comes to pre-secured states.  The democrats begin most presidential elections with far more electoral votes more or less guaranteed, so why would they bother with the South? The Democrats could ignore the Deep South completely, with the exception of Florida and still win the presidency.

But, the real question is, what are the repercussions of this? Does ignoring the South really create a representative democracy?  Certainly not, but it’s not only the Democrats that are doing this. Any Republican from Massachusetts knows she must be relatively liberal to stand a chance in state elections, and any Republican Presidential candidate usually does not even bother visiting. Over time, this creates secure Republican and Democratic states, even if there are parts of each state which separate from the norm.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Red_and_Blue_States_Map_(Average_Margins_of_Presidential_Victory).svg/2000px-Red_and_Blue_States_Map_(Average_Margins_of_Presidential_Victory).svg.png

While an ideal democracy would mean Democrats keep trying in the South, it is good political strategy not to bother. While it would be nice to have people from all parts of the country agreeing on a President, it is not a realistic goal in the American political system.

Posted in Julia | Tagged , , , , , , | 18 Comments

First Daughters, the Families of Presidents, and Political Misogyny

Posted on December 9, 2014 by nmenefeelibey

A few weeks ago, following the Obama family’s public appearance at the Thanksgiving turkey pardoning, a GOP staffer came under fire for her remarks about Sasha and Malia Obama. At the turkey pardoning, as at most public events, the Obama girls were photographed extensively, but the pictures which gained the most coverage were ones of the girls looking bored, annoyed, “holy crap, dad, we only have a few days off from school and you’re making us watch you talk to a freaking bird,” etc. As someone who has been a teenage girl with an embarrassing dad, I can totally empathize.

But, this GOP staffer didn’t see it this way, writing an article where she urged Sasha and Malia to “have some class,” criticizing everything from their attitudes to their outfits. Setting aside the racialized and sexualized nature of these comments*, this article got me thinking about the families of politicians, and especially the children of politicians.

Sasha and Malia didn’t RUN for the position of “first daughter.” Sure, they supported their dad at campaign rallies, put up with their secret service detail, and wear fancy dresses to inaugural balls, but at the end of the day, the only thing that makes them different from any other teenage girl is the fact that their dad is the guy in charge of our nuclear launch codes. And yet, because they exist in the public eye, their lives are up for public comment, debate, and scrutiny.

Picking apart every aspect of the lives, looks, and personalities of the female members of politician’s families is hardly a new phenomenon. From Nell Carter’s looks to the Bush twin’s partying, first daughters have had to grow up in the spotlight since the advent of television. The same scrutiny, if not a heightened degree, is afforded for their mothers, who are in charge of representing a kind of national idea of motherhood and womanhood which would be difficult to live up to under the best of circumstances, let alone as the focus of national attention.

So, this raises an interesting question about the possibility of Hillary running in two years. During her tenure as first lady, she was often criticized for being cold, arrogant, and detached. While these same qualities would likely be described differently were they attributed to a man, it’s also interesting to imagine how they will be discussed and spun in relation to a presidential nominee (or, maybe, a president). Will the possibility of a woman holding our countries highest office change national conversations about the nature of womanhood and power? Or will President Clinton have to worry not only about commanding our armed forces, but about looking good doing it?

*Okay, I really can’t just ignore it. First of all, telling two young women, especially two young black women that they don’t have the necessary “class” to represent the United States, is indicative of an undercurrent of antiblackness in American politics that has become even more prevalent of late. Secondly, if you think that Sasha and Malia are too young to be “dressing like that,” they’re certainly too young for you to be sexualizing them for dressing like that.

Posted in Nell, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Voter Identification Laws

Posted on December 9, 2014 by kbenjamin

A total of 34 states have passed laws that require voters to show some sort of identification before being able to cast a ballot for election. Of these 34 states, 31 of the states were in effect before the 2014 midterm election. North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania have all passed this law, but it is not yet being enacted. I believe it is important to have some way to monitor who is voting, however voter identification fraud is very rare, and the other nineteen states that do not require voters to show identification have not seemed to have any problems. These remaining nineteen states have other ways to verify the voter, such as a signature before casting a ballot. The main arguments in support of requirements for identification is “to prevent in-person voter impersonation and increase public confidence in the election process.” Arguments against requirements for identification include that there is very little voter fraud, it imposes more burdens on election administrators, and most importantly it can restrict certain groups of voters, especially in states where photo ID’s are required. I am not saying that removing these restrictions would have changed the outcomes of the 2014 midterm elections, or will change outcomes in the future. However, having strict voter ID laws can pose a burden to certain groups who may not have as many opportunities to obtain ID’s, or photo ID’s,. It is no surprise that states with higher turnout rates have less strict voter identification laws.

 

Posted in Kayla | Tagged , | 2 Comments

A Divided Front before Clinton

Posted on December 8, 2014 by emorgenstein

If the Republicans want to secure the 2016 presidential race,  inter-Party reform is crucial. Divisions within the Party and prevailing unpopular social views threaten to toss the bone to Hillary Clinton before the race begins.

As Barack Obama begins a bumpy descent from his 8-year run, the Democrats are left belly-up and vulnerable after criticism related to Obamacare and executive action on immigration. It is an opportune gap for the GOP to intervene with a right-moderate candidate, securing disillusioned democrats in the electorate and giving far right conservatives little choice in who to vote for. But just as Republicans won’t moderate their bigoted social policies, they may not be able to play nicely enough in the primaries to put their best candidate forward, either.

A New York Times article reports that Republican donors are debating an ideal strategy to put a single establishment candidate forward. At all costs, they want to avoid a primary race of personal attacks that will discredit the eventual nominee and waste valuable funds. Even worse, the primary’s casualties could cast off the candidate most likely to secure America’s vote.

The Republican primary pool is teeming with at least 12 potential nominees representing all corners of their electorate. Major donors (the article mentions Woody Johnson, owner of the Jets) are waiting until probable nominees like Mitt Romney declare candidacy to decide whom to back. Former Governor Jeb Bush leads the pack, with mildly less conservative stances on key issues like immigration reform and education. Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, and Chris Christie are also likely.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvAovX3wCyk[/youtube]

It’s probable that Hillary Clinton will run in 2016. According to some, it would be difficult for any Republican candidate to beat the coalition of Democrats she would likely compile (according to a Latino Decisions poll, Clinton is widely supported by Latinos because of Obama’s immigration reform). Another likely Democratic candidate, Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, would quickly stick his foot in the event that Clinton doesn’t run. Independent Bernard Sanders doesn’t stand a chance, but according to the Times “could fill the role of the candidate nudging Mrs. Clinton to embrace a more populist approach.”

If Bush secures his party’s nomination, he might provide a centrist enough position to attract right-leaning Democrats and the entire conservative coalition. At present, he is perhaps most able to pose a challenge to Clinton (his brother George Bush believes it).

As Republicans vie for funding early on, whether the Republican primary will be too divisive in the face of Clinton’s potential run is unclear. If it is maintained, the GOP’s divided face will sabotage any presidential hopes and help determine the election. A unified Republican Party would be a threat to the Democratic Party. Its current divisions are in the Democrats’ favor.

Posted in Eva | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

The Midterms Won’t Predict the 2016 President – Here’s What Will

Posted on December 8, 2014 by acarroll

As several of my classmates have already pointed out in reference to this New York Times editorial, midterm election results are not particularly predictive of the outcomes of subsequent presidential elections. It’s pretty typical for the party in power to lose seats in the midterm elections, as the few voters who turn out seek to repudiate the president for any dissatisfaction they feel with the status quo. However, national conditions closer to the general election tend to have a far greater impact on the outcome than the relatively inconsequential elections occurring two years previously. Although the incumbent presidential party might still experience a tiny bit of this retaliatory disadvantage, the immediate context in which the election occurs will ultimately determines the victor.

So if the 2014 midterms don’t tell us anything about who’s going to be our next president in 2016, then what does? Well, thankfully Brendan Nyhan begins to answer this question for us in that same New York Times editorial! First and foremost, Nyhan argues that voters will most heavily weigh their 2016 voting decisions on the state of the economy. If the economy happens to be booming during the 2016 election season, any democratic nominee could easily campaign on his (or her – come on Hillary!) predecessor’s fiscal success. Conversely, the economy will be an easy target for any of the many possible Republican challengers if things aren’t going so well in that department come November 2016. As you can see in the figure below, income increases during a president’s term are positively correlated with incumbent party victories:

http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Elect.jpg

Additionally, according to Thomas B. Edsall, Americans aren’t just scared; they’re terrified of threats from abroad. In his recent New York Times editorial, he discusses voters’ concerns about foreign policy issues and how they influence which candidates they’ll support in 2016. Apparently, since 9/11, Americans have felt this intense fear of threats from abroad, which Thomas L. Friedman thoroughly discusses in this piece. For example, a recent Pew poll shows that nearly a third of voters place combatting ISIS as the top political priority facing the nation, and two thirds believe that Republicans are better equipped to face this threat than Democrats. And don’t even get me started on Ebola – a quarter of Americans are scared about that, too, but a Gallup poll shows voters just about split as to which party is better equipped to handle that threat…

Of course, demographic changes among the American people may also impact the 2016 presidential election. Will the Republican stronghold of Georgia turn blue? Will true-blue Wisconsin become new Republican territory? And will the strong support for Democrats among young people and minorities, particularly Hispanics, continue to dwindle? Only time will tell whether shifting national demographics will balance one another out or shift in favor of a single party. A broader discussion of this topic certainly warrants a return to a Real Clear Politics article I previously cited analyzing the midterm election results and projecting into the future if you’d like to read more on this topic.

Anyway, the important remaining questions involve which candidates, listed in a recent “round-up” are best equipped to handle the issues with which voters are most concerned in 2016. One the Republican side, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush carries name recognition, and he might be just moderate enough to gain a national following, but his name may also hinder a run as the third Bush president. Next, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie boasts a similar moderate appeal, but whether he’ll be able to get out from under his state’s “bridge-gate” scandal remains in question. Farther to the right, we see Junior Senators Rand Paul (Kentucky), Ted Cruz (Texas), and Marco Rubio (Florida), as well as previous presidential candidates Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. A pair of unconventional Governors, Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) and Scott Walker (Wisconsin), round out the current field. Candidates like Rubio and Jindal would reflect the nation’s increasing diversity, but are any of these candidates particularly well versed in foreign policy? Maybe… Paul and Rubio sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with Paul also involved in Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, but it remains to be seen whether such experience will translate into success in the 2016 presidential race.

And then, potentially running for the Democrats, there’s Hillary. Will she or won’t she? The whole country’s asking, and waiting with bated breath for her to break her silence and declare or deny her candidacy for the White House. Okay, so maybe I’m being a little over-dramatic, but it’s hard not to be, when groups that support Hillary are already producing campaign materials like this gem posted last month by the Stand With Hillary super PAC: (Spoiler alert, they literally shatter the glass ceiling with a sledgehammer!)

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfU3hI8ML30[/youtube]

 

Clearly, this video strives to make Hillary seem relatable, wholesome, and sympathetic to the needs of conservative voters (come on, it’s a COUNTRY song, and Republicans definitely like country music!). In his New York Times editorial on the subject of Hillary’s 2016 prospects, Frank Bruni encourages Hillary to embrace her womanhood rather than play to her “masculine” strengths, as she did in 2008, which along with her huge financial and political resources and loads of foreign policy experience as Secretary of State (as controversial as some aspects of her tenure may be…), could just win her the election. Who knows, if she plays her cards right and the context is favorable, Hillary might just make history.

http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/89ce2e7/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Ff5%2Fb0044892747c972ff7810563bbf8b7%2Fmedia%3A46387593c8784088b73da981005223cfHILLARYCLINTON.JPEG

Of course, there are other Democrats who may run (like Vice President Joe Biden and Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, for example), but they, like me, are waiting for Hillary’s news before they make any big decisions.

 

Posted in Anna C. | Tagged , , , , , , | 66 Comments