2016 Presidential Election: Will Name Recognition Give Candidates A Boost?

Running for President is certainty easier when people know your name. This election we see two people, Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton, with famous names squarely in the mix. The lifeblood of politics is money, not ideas, and those with it and those who have donors lined up are in a much better position than those without. Senators and Governors are used to being well know in their home states, and have the ability to raise money for their elections. Running for President is a whole different game, unless you are a political science major most of the candidates are known outside their state of region. Bush and Clinton are in the best position to take advantage of their name and have access to large donors, other candidates need to connect with a portion of America and show they are relevant and hope they attract a few large money donors to raise cash. Cash ultimately decides how far they go in the process. 

http://www.ibtimes.com/2016-presidential-election-will-name-recognition-give-candidates-boost-1880280

New Hampshire Poll

  The saying that in politics, 6 months is a lifetime, 18 months is forever is true here. A lot can change in 18 months, but in that time the nation will select the 45th President of the United States. A new poll shows of a lot of uncertainty in the Republican field. No less than 5 declared candidates are currently announced with another 8-10 looking to get in. Seven of the candidates are polling  with a preference in the 7%-12% range. The Democratic field is dominated by Hilary Clinton, who as of today has only one declared candidate running against her.

In the battleground state of New Hampshire, a small but vitally important state, the race to succeed Obama starts the the primary season. The next nine months the candidates will try and get voters comfortable with them. The biggest challenge will be to attract independents, as New Hampshire allows Independent voters to vote in either primary. A strong showing in New Hampshire allows candidates to build momentum in both public perception and the ultimate driver, campaign contributions. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-10/new-hampshire-poll-republican-field-tightens-hillary-clinton-still-out-in-front-among-democrats%C2%A0

2016: A look Forward

With a new GOP candidate announcing their candidacy every few days it seems, it is hard to hypothesize who is going to win the presidential nominee. Candidates such as Scott Walker, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul all bring new and different ideas to the table. They will also appeal to very different social, economic and religious groups. It also may not be any of these candidates but there are some early predictions. As of now it is thought that Scott Walker has commanded a rough 12-15% of the votes over the course of several months which is very unusual for candidates to do.

There are a few reasons why I believe this is the case. First Scott is an experienced executive as he is the Governor of Wisconsin. Further more his more libertarian-esque fall more into line as to where the party is evolving. The Republican party is experiencing a major shift in ideals from the "old ways" of social conservatism to the new hands off and personal freedoms approach. Gov. Walker is also a major supporter of state over federal rights which is becoming increasingly popular on both sides of the aisle as well as in independent voters. Finally I think that Gov. Walker will be the nominee because he appeals to the classic blue collar working man. He has risen through the political ranks without a college degree through hard work and dedication, a true testament to his spirit and character.

2nd amendment

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The second amendment has changed meanings from when it was written in the constitution to the present. Many people believe that when the amendment was written it was for civilians in the military   and no longer applies today. I believe that the second amendment is something that is necessary and should stay in the constitution. With all of the shootings that have happened and law enforcement over using their power I believe that people who are suitable to carry a firearm should.  I am all for background checks and interviews because I do believe that not everyone is suitable/mature enough to carry a gun. But I don't believe that it should be removed because people have the right to protect themselves in whatever way the need to. 


http://members.tripod.com/~waycool_dude/secondamendment.html
http://solutions.heritage.org/guns/

Do we need an electoral college?

"The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. 

The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. 

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes."

To me the electoral college does not seem fair to the american people. I believe this because many american citizens believe that when they cast a vote it doesn't matter. Even though I vote every election its hard for me to believe that mine actually does anything ether. I believe that the system should be whoever has the majority vote will win the election. This is clean cut and gives each state equality. I don't think the electoral college should be eliminated just used as a back up in case of a tie. This will give people a reason to go to the polls every election because they will know that their vote is actually making a difference. 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

From Race to Gender

The decision for the topic of this blog post was between new presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Socialist Bernie Sanders, according to many analysts and polls, doesn't have a chance at winning the presidency, so it’s time for another post about Hillary, and it’s time for a history lesson.

The presidential election of 2008 seems like an eternity away. Every student in this class was about half a decade away from voting age, yet our memories of ‘change’ and ‘progress’ seem to never fade. 2008 was a year of an overwhelming sense of accomplishment and satisfaction for many and disappointment for some. There are many reasons why President Obama won that election. You could go on and on about how McCain ‘wasn't a good speaker’ and something about him ‘just didn't sit right with you’, or ill feelings towards Bush pushed voters left, but one thing you can’t deny is that race played a key factor. Many people voted for Obama because he was black and ignored his policies, whether they agreed with them or not. Race was the key issue to many people, they thought that his election really did mean ‘Change’ and made up for the terrible past. This was even evident in the international community, as Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” just for being elected, an award that Obama even said he didn't deserve.

Now the 2016 election is right around the corner, and these feelings of ‘change’ and ‘progress’ are reemerging all over again. Hillary Clinton, who barely lost the nomination to Obama in 2008, has already surfaced as the Democratic front runner. Now, the history lesson.

 Hillary Diane Rodham was born on October 26, 1947 in Chicago, Illinois. She was raised conservative in a Methodist family. She was very politically active, and supported the election of Richard Nixon in 1960, and Barry Goldwater in the following election. She attended Wellesley College majoring in political science, and was even President of the Young Republicans club there. Conservatism was deep in her blood and beliefs, she remained active in her church. But her beliefs took a 180 degree turn when her leftist minister introduced her to a protégé of Al Capone’s right hand man. This man spent extensive amounts of time with Capone’s criminal organization and brought their scare tactics to politics. That man was the father of modern community organizing, and his name was Saul Alinsky.

Hillary then went on to Yale Law School, where she met Bill Clinton in 1971, and they got married four years later. In 1978, her husband was elected Governor of Arkansas, where he maintained that position until 1980, and then re-assumed it in 1982 up until his presidency. This is where Hillary’s scandals began. First there’s the Whitewater Scandal, in which she and her husband had invested and became partners in the Whitewater Development Corp., which allegedly, under her influence, engaged in tax fraud, unethical practices, and ultimately failed. Next there’s the Travelgate scandal, in which she had the head of the White House Travel Office wrongfully fired so he could be replaced by her friends. The victim, Billy Dale, was later cleared of all charges, but his career was still ruined. A couple of scandals later emerges the Chinagate scandal where the Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, sold seats on Department trade emissions to China, under the direction of Hillary.

After Bill’s presidency, the couple stole a play from what is now considered Scott Brown’s playbook and moved to New York so she could run for the US Senate. Clinton serves eight years as a Senator, though during those eight years not a single bill had her name on it and her voting record included supporting the Iraq War. After narrowly losing the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama in 2008, she became the Obama administration’s Secretary of State. Her four years as Secretary of State yielded no major accomplishments and two new scandals: Benghazi and her emails. Benghazi occurred because repeated requests for more security at the US Embassy were denied and ignored by her and her State Department. Libya was and still is a hot zone in the Middle East, all calls for more security should not have been ignored, and the US Ambassador died because of her negligence. Upon investigation, Hillary’s emails were demanded by subpoena and then subsequently deleted. Deleting evidence while under subpoena is a third degree felony. Hillary has also made the claim that she was “dead-broke” upon leaving the White House despite purchasing a million dollar mansion upon becoming a former First Lady and continuously having an average net worth in the millions. Finally, and more recently, is the scandal of the Clinton Foundation accepting millions from foreign governments that abuse human rights and women’s rights.

Why is any of this important and how does it relate to gender in the presidential election of 2016? Hillary’s positive accomplishments are existent, yet none of them occurred while she was First Lady, Senator, or Secretary of State, other than a voting record that might appeal to you. What is present though, is a variety of scandals. Take a second and imagine what would have happened if a male Republican directly caused an ambassador to die in Libya, withheld information from a subpoena, used his private email while Secretary of State while citing carrying two phones as a hassle, and associated with someone formerly (and formally) involved with an associate of Al Capone. Remember that many Presidents get excessive amounts of grief for something that was not their fault or that they were not directly involved with. Hillary’s misdeeds, alleged misdeeds, and lack of accomplishments are ignored simply because she is a woman, and similarly to Barack Obama in 2008, her supporters want change. All political views aside, Hillary would not be a plausible candidate if she was male, or even a Republican. Lesser things than a single one of Hillary’s scandals have sunk entire presidential campaigns, if the American people really want a woman President then why not wait for a better option?

Moving Forward After Baltimore

Now that Baltimore has calmed down and the National Guard has left, what's next for the citizens and the police department? The state attorney general announced 4 days ago that Freddie Gray's death is consider to be a homicide and the state will be charging 6 Baltimore police officers in the case. Baltimore's police commissioner did not know about the chargers being brought to his officers until 10 minutes before the national televised press conference. He seem surprised in his interview that his officers may be charged with second degree murder and manslaughter. However he seemed to be very understanding of the distrust the Baltimore community is having with his police officers. He has made it very clear he plans on gaining the trust back for the police departments. When discussing the riots during the interview he made it clear that his officers were not ready to handle the mass amount of angry protestors the hours following Gray's funeral services. The commissioner promised to reunite the community and the police, but admits it will take some time. Change will not happen over night. The commissioner, who is also African American,  stressed the point that the lack of education for African Americans is being a nation wide problem and believes it's one of the underlying causes of the lack of trust in authority many people have throughout the country.

My issue with all of this is the solution. What actually is going to be done to assure Baltimore won't happen again? Eduction reforms are a must but that isn't going to fix the brutality of police officers towards members of the community they serve. How many African American males are going to have to die before Americans as a whole are up in arms & have complete distrust with the police? This isn't a Baltimore issue, nor a Ferguson issue but instead a national issue that needs to be settled as soon as possible. Any suggestions on policy that could be passed to improve this distrust with our police?

Link to commissioner interview

No Casinos in New Hampshire

The New Hampshire House of Representatives just recently voted down the approved Senate Bill 113, "relative to video lottery and table gaming". With 156 yeas to the 208 nays, the vote failed by a fairly wide margin of 56 votes, but certainly not a landslide. Personally, I had been on the fence about the whole casino issue, because there are very compelling arguments for and against casinos. For one, New Hampshire is certainly in need of added revenues, however gambling was being touted as a cure all to all of our fiduciary woes. Social costs, were also another main concern amongst many Democrats and Republicans alike. Although I have no moral qualms about gambling, NH and the northeast has been undergoing a significant heroin epidemic and although gaming revenue could be used to address that, I was hesitant to vote for something that may have the potential to increase or centralize criminal activity near the casinos. Additional fears of the gaming lobby coming to dominate NH's political landscape, also surfaced during debate, especially considering the fact that the proposed casinos would ultimately be the largest taxpaying bloc in NH. During the dawn of the 20th century, the railroad industry in NH effectively owned the Statehouse, so fears of returning to a similar era certainly led a few legislators to vote against gaming. No doubt, images of "Casino" and "The Godfather" conjured up some worries about organized crime, but this argument was repeatedly shot down and probably wouldn't have been a major concern. Ultimately, I voted against organized gaming because I disagree with the premise of gambling providing most of our States revenue. Although I would be in the minority, I would certainly rather see a modest income tax on top revenue earners, before we establish a more regressive revenue source that tends to draw revenue from the poor and elderly. Also, I reasoned that if NH established gambling as a major revenue source, Republicans would fight tooth and nail to prevent any future fees, taxes or revenues being raised for any additional state agencies or needs of the State. Simply put, I didn't want to see the State that's always been my home establish gambling as its main source of revenue, when a much less environmentally and socially questionable alternative could (and should) be implemented, namely a moderate income tax.