Ohio, Long a Bellwether, Is Fading on the Electoral Map

NY Times Article

Summary:

Ohio has long been an important swing state in presidential elections. No presidential candidate has won the election without carrying Ohio since JFK in 1960. However, Clinton’s campaign has placed much less importance on Ohio this year. Ohio has not kept up with the demographic changes of the rest of the nation and as such is about eighty percent white. As a result, Trump has gained enough of a lead in Ohio that the Clinton campaign has decided that resources are better spent in states like Florida, North Carolina, and Colorado. Clinton has not visited the state since labor day which is in sharp contrast to Obama who had held five separate events in Ohio in September 2012. Ohio remains a must win for the Trump campaign but its decreased importance this election could mean that Ohio is slowly losing its swing state status. If Ohio were to become a red state, Democrats would have to find new states to draw support from.

Questions:
1. Can Hillary win the election without carrying Ohio?
2. Can the Democratic continue to contend in Ohio?
3. If Ohio becomes a Red state which states will become important for Democrats?
4. Which states will be most important in this election?

Trump Takes Clinton's Bait in First Debate

Trump Takes Clinton's Bait

Summary: Hilary and Trump appeared in their first presidential debate Monday and it seems that Hillary “managed to crawl under Trump’s skin”. The debate revealed that Trump was more focused about his image than addressing the public’s concerns while Hilary remained perfectly composed throughout. In Ohio, out of a focus group with 29 undecided voters, 17 believed Hillary won while none voted for Trump. Clinton continued to push his buttons by making remarks about loaning millions from his father and attacking him for not paying any federal taxes. In response Trump stated he would make his taxes public when Hillary made her deleted emails public. Trump also retaliated and attacked Hillary for her husband’s signing of NAFTA, “the worst things that’s ever happened to the manufacturing industry”. However, Clinton continued to fire back at Trump by fact checking him for his denial of supporting the Iraq War and claiming Obama was not born in the U.S. It is uncertain who truly won the debate but what we do know is that the polls are close and the next debate will be vital to determining who becomes the next president.

Questions:

1. What were some of the reasons why Hillary deems Trump unfit to be president? Why does Trump deem Hillary unfit?
2. Who do you think won the debate?
3. Explain the political cartoon
4. What demographic does Trump/Hillary appeal to?
5. Do the debates even matter if people already know who they are siding with?

Clinton, Trump Navigate Politics of Police Violence

CNN Article by Eric Bradner

Summary:
Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have offered different perspectives on the police shootings of African Americans in Oklahoma and North Carolina. Considering that the presidential election is nearing, these two candidates must publicly denounce the shootings and offer proposals for how to avoid similar events in the future. North Carolina is a swing state and the candidates are certainly using this event to try and win over North Carolina's 15 valuable electoral votes. Trump's proposal was a "stop-and-frisk practice," which involves stopping to question and inspect pedestrians; yet many argue that this is targeted against minorities and is based on unjust suspicion. Clinton, on the other hand, believes the relationship between communities and law enforcement must be strengthened in order to reverse oppressive stereotypes; and instead a unified community must be created. Clinton recognizes the likelihood that the shooting was a result of "systematic racism," whereas Trump suggests that the officer just "choked." Knowing the importance of doing so, both candidates are attempting to court African American voters with sympathy and assurance that steps will be taken to avoid this in the future. Clinton uses words like "unbearable" and "intolerable" when addressing the fact that another name is added to the list of African American involved in police shootings. Trump claimed that "African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've even been in before. Ever. Ever. Ever." Most critics are frustrated with this comment and Trump's disregard towards slavery and segregation, a history that we have certainly moved forward from, yet not completely.

Questions:
1. Given how the two candidates responded to the event, who has a better chance of winning over North Carolina?
2. Do you think Trump really believes the officer just "choked?" Explain.
3. What does the cartoon suggest?
4. How would you respond to this shooting if you were the presidential candidate so close to the election?
5. What is your perspective on the officers involved? Do you have any sympathy for them given that they really may have "choked?" Do you think it was racism? Explain your answer.

Undecided Veto Override Vote of 9/11 Bill

Democrats waver on override for 9/11 bill by Seung Min Kim and Heather Caygle, Politico

Summary:

The legislation that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia is beginning to lose Democratic support, suggesting that Obama’s opposition to the bill is beginning to resonate with lawmakers. Although the law was unanimously passed by both chambers, key lawmakers now remain undecided on their vote to override Obama’s expected veto, reconsidering arguments against the measure. However, without enough support to oppose the bill from the Senate, the Obama presidency will see its first presidential veto override. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer both agree that the bill is very complex and needs to be reconsidered with its potential consequences. Other senators have begun to express their qualms as well, but have been met with relentless lobbying from family members. White House press secretary Josh Earnest claims that members of Congress from both parties are open to and share Obama’s concerns, such as sovereign immunity, but questions whether they will be able to cast a vote consistent with their own views. The legislation amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to prevent countries involved in terrorist attacks from invoking sovereign immunity. Proponents of legislation have noted that changes have been made to accommodate Obama’s concerns; however, there is little room for a compromise that will satisfy both the victims’ families and the diplomatic concerns. While many members of the Senate still remain undecided, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and firm supporter of the legislation, Sen. Chuck Grassley, argues that “If people don’t want to override the veto, they should’ve expressed their opposition earlier.”

Questions:

Why was the bill passed unanimously through both chambers of Congress?

What are some concerns that Obama has about the bill?

Is there a way for Congress to satisfy the victims’ families while considering the diplomatic concerns?

What are some of the ways Congress and its procedures are structured in regards to this event (Whip, sovereign immunity, votes)?

Shootings in Charlotte, North Carolina, as Riots Reach their Second Night

NY Times; Man is Shot in Charlotte as Unrest Stretches to Second Night

There have been three more police-involved deadly shootings in the past week, and all victims have been African American males. In response to these shootings, Charlotte, North Carolina has been rioting for the past two days, and now, national guard members are being called in to help the police bring peace back to the city. Just today (Wednesday) a man has been shot in the riot, is what is said to be civilian on civilian violence. The issues of gun violence and police-involved deadly shootings of African American males have been steadily growing over the past few years, and with 3 shootings in one week, they seem to be reaching a peak. All three shootings are under investigation, which usually adds more tension, no matter what decision is reached. Additionally, the police are rarely found guilty in investigations, as just last Wednesday is was announced "that no charges would be filed against any of the officers involved in the Aug. 1 shooting death of Korryn Gaines or the shooting of her 5-year-old son". If officers can't be convicted for shooting a 5-year old, can they be expected to be convicted of anything? The riots in Charlotte may be just the beginning, as other affected cities could easily be inspired to follow suit. Both presidential candidates have expressed sympathy, but neither are saying much else about the issue. With these events in mind, consider these questions;

1. Do you think Obama has done enough, as an African American male himself, about these shooting epidemics? If not, how could he have done more?
2. If you were president, how would you address this phenomenon?
3. Do you think this growing epidemic will eventually bring down the NRA's influence in politics or do you think it is essentially unstoppable (as is has been up to this point)
4. How do you think the two presidential candidates will fare against this issue? For instance, if Trump became president, what do you think he would do about it? Hillary?
5. Do you think the House and the Senate will ever be able to agree on a gun control law?

David Brooks' Realignment Won't Happen by David Atkins - Washington Monthly


Summary:

David Brooks correctly asserts that there is a comfortable "upper crust" benefiting from globalization and increases in asset prices, while a large set of middle and working castes experience a decline in wealth.  Atkins explains that Brooks expects the "great faction of millennials and workers of all races" to join Republicans while Democrats secure the support of Silicon Valley and Wall Street. However, Atkins points to the social and neurological factors that lead to the general liberal or conservative tendencies and how these feelings are stronger than any immediate response to economic anxiety.  As such, there will be no major party realignment.  In fact, Atkins expects the Republicans to create a happier version of the race conscious economic protectionism that clings to a reactionary belief in the good old days.  The Democrats will have to deal with an intra-party struggle between the progressives and the "establishmentarians."  If Atkins is correct, the Republicans will become a "regional minority party" because the demographic shifts do not favor their base, while it remains to be seen whether Wall Street or Main Street will prevail amongst the Democrats.  

Questions:
Do you think that how our brains respond to certain stimuli can predict our political identity?
How much of a factor is race in this situation?
What is the most or least compelling part of Atkins' argument?
What will happen in the future to the parties?

What kind of party? A Realignment Party!

Time for a Realignment? by David Brooks, New York Times

Summary:

David Brooks claims the unpopularity of Trump and Clinton is not what is making this election a transformational moment. Existing partisan mentalities are dying out and the current social divide will likely lead to some sort of party realignment in the near future.  Brooks says "the molten core of the Republicans is the dispossessed" while the Democratic core consists of the "coastal professional class."  These disparate groups have a huge trust gap in terms of trusting their neighbors, governmental institutions and surely the 21st century global economy.  If certain groups within each party, minority dispossessed Democrats and Republican professionals, recognize the molten core does not reflect their values, one can expert some party realignment.  For example, the Sanders Democrats and Camber of Commerce Republicans will not stay with their respective parties if the party leaves them ideologically.  According to Brooks, this is likely given the fact the social, mental and emotional gap between the core groups will widen.
Questions:

Is David Brooks' bold claim accurate?
Can the Republican Party gain popularity with minority voters, especially if their message focuses on struggles in response to globalization?
Can the Democrats balance constituencies such as upper income professionals who have benefited from the 21st century global economy with the millenials who will graduate will record levels of student debt?