Hillary Wins Pennsylvania!

In a not-entirely-shocking turn of events, Hillary won the hearts of 55.7% of Pennsylvania's democrats (AP). In a slightly more shocking turn of events, she managed to take a selfie with me on my incredibly broken cell-phone (it looks like I'm photobombing! I'm not! It's my phone!). While I knew I wouldn't be able to actually vote myself, I was really looking forward to pressing the big VOTE button today. Unfortunately, neither of my parents got to vote because my dad was in the hospital, but we still pulled off a victory!

Hillary addressed the crowd sometime after 8:30; Bill, Governor Wolf, Mayor Kenney, and Senator Casey were at her side. She gave a pretty classic winner's speech, and said "We have much more that unites us than divides us."

 I cried. I screamed. I nearly pulled Bill Clinton's ring off by accident. It was a good time.

Possibly more exciting than meeting Hillary, was meeting her assistant, Huma Abedin. Is that horrible of me? I saw her as the crowd cleared, looking just as beautiful as she did in the blog post I wrote about her several weeks ago. She seemed slightly confused when I asked for a picture, but she was happy to take one. I nearly died, and had to sit down for a good five minutes before I could stop shaking and leave. 

I don't have much substance to report, just my own excitement. I can't wait until the convention, I can't wait for November, and I cannot wait to call her Madam President.

Week Five: Getting Casual and Going On a Rant

Ana and I geek out!!!

Today in Hilladelphia, we're going to get a little casual and deviate from the regular article-analyzing format. First up, a review of the Hillary Clinton organizing event I went to this weekend (guest starring Wendy Davis!). I asked my two-year-old brother what I should write about, and he told me "Batman," but I said I had to write about Hillary Clinton. I asked if he knew who that was, and he said she was the president, so if that's any indication of how the young people of America are feeling, her odds are pretty good.

On Sunday, March 3rd, Hillary for America held an event that was a sort of organizer training for people interested in volunteering for her campaign. Despite being a fairly undecided voter (a term I use loosely, since I'm a month too young to vote in the primary) I went anyway, because I'm mostly just eager to be involved in a campaign, and I was looking for good opportunities. Also Wendy Davis would be there, and I admire her like crazy, to the point where I have a picture of her on my wall (next to Hillary and Ruth Bader Ginsburg). The event started out slow. It was in a dingy event space in the AFL-CIO building at 22nd and Market, and while it was run by several passionate young people, the ice breaker game was cringe-worthy, and it only got worse when a couple of middle-age women got up and started talking about how Bernie Sanders was making empty promises and young people were insane for thinking he could make their problems disappear. As far as convincing millennials to vote for Hillary, that wasn't the best way to approach it. However, the people who were actually working for Hillary encouraged volunteers to, when faced with questions about why Hillary is better than Bernie, simply talk about Hillary. Talking shit about the other candidate won't get you anywhere, and Hillary's accomplishments could shine on their own. Apart from that, they mostly just went over how to successfully work a phone bank (smile while you dial!) and how to canvass (shake their hand) and coming up with an "elevator pitch" based off of your own personal story that inspired your vote for Hillary. Towards the end, Wendy Davis came in to a standing ovation and talked about why she was endorsing Hillary, her "elevator pitch," and her pink running shoes. After she left the stage, Ana and I tip-toed out the back to talk to her before she left, telling her what an inspiration she is and getting a quick picture. When the event was over, we got to talk to a few of the organizers who offered to contact us about fellowship positions on the campaign, and we were invited to the Hillary for Pennsylvania office opening tomorrow. Despite the Bernie-related turn-off at the beginning, the event actually solidified my interest in voting for Hillary. After discussing it with Ana, I think that a few things have become clear.

1. While I'm not voting for Hillary solely because she is a woman, it is a very important part of it. Bernie has fantastic views, but while we have another man in the White House, women's issues can never take priority, because a man can never really understand them to the same depth. Also, a lot of the points taken up against Hillary are really the result of sexism. 
2. Much of my dislike for Bernie is because of his supporters, and while it doesn't seem entirely fair to base my dislike off of people who aren't really him, he gains supporters because of what he preaches, so I think they do speak volumes about him. I also think that at the beginning of the campaign, he spoke out against the kind of violent emotion and action that is brewing in his own supporters now, and now that they are on his side, he speaks less about it. I also find that this campaign has, in a sense, corrupted him, which leads me to my next point.
3. Many people dislike Hillary because she is a "politician," which is stupid for a number of reasons. Of course she's a politician, she's running for elected office, so literally everyone else running is also a politician. Bernie is a politician too, even if he is an outsider to the democratic party. And why on earth is President of the United States the one job for which people want the least qualified candidate? I mean, I get it. Politics is corrupt and it sounds like a good idea to have someone unsullied by the dirty Washington ongoings or whatever, but it's actually a stupid idea and I'm over it.
4. So many people dislike Hillary for how she has switched her positions on LGBTQ issues, and they argue that back in the day she worked for the young Republicans or whatever. What I have realized, is that I just don't care. People change their opinions and as long as she's on the right side now, I respect it. In fact, I respect that she has the presence of mind to actually look at what she believes and take the initiative to change her mind and switch parties, she's not just a mindless follower, etc.
5. Hillary has done so many great things. She has her name attached to countless projects, as First Lady, as Secretary of State... While Bernie is known for supporting great things, he doesn't have one project to really call his own. 

 This got really long and unnecessary, so I might have to break it up and put my discussion of the crazy Nevada convention in another post. I know that I'm not changing anyone's mind here on my blog read by one moderate Republican man for a grade, but I really needed to get that off my back. I'm just really excited to get involved with this election and to throw myself into politics, whether that is volunteering with Hillary or at the DNC or what have you. I'm so happy to have finally committed to a candidate! #IStandWithHer

Clinton Wins Over Manufacturers, the South, Minorities... Basically Everyone.

In The Guardian, "Bernie Sanders: Clinton 'creamed us' in south but west coast will be better" looks at Bernie Sanders' loses in the South against Hillary Clinton. Alan Yuhas reports that Sanders is placing his hopes in the West Coast, which he claims is the most progressive part of America, and that he will only improve moving forward in the elections. Sanders reiterates the argument that Clinton is part of "establishment politics," and that voters are looking for real change. He frowns upon Clinton's recent adoption of positions he has been advocating for for over twenty years. He also denounces her affiliation with super PACs, and Wall Street, as per usual. When asked about whether he was trying to get superdelegates from Clinton, he avoids the question by saying that the whole concept of superdelegates is problematic. He also believes that he is in the best position to beat Donald Trump. I'm really intrigued by the idea that he is the best candidate to beat Trump, because I have seen him win against Trump in polling, beating out Hillary by a large number, but I don't really understand why. I think Sanders is hopeful, but while I think he is right about the West Coast's progressiveness, I don't think he really has much of a chance at winning. While I really liked Sanders a few months ago, and I really like his politics, the more I see of him, the more he leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I don't really know why. My politics haven't changed, and they still lie with him for the most part, but he is slowly driving me more towards Clinton. I'm curious to know if more of his old supporters feel similarly.

My second article, from the New Yorker, is titled "Did Violence At the Trump Rally Help Clinton?" looks at the violence at the Trump rallies in Chicago. John Cassidy talks about how some people believe that the "Trump Scare" encouraged voters to vote for Clinton because they believe that reliable and mainstream is the best way to beat Trump. However, exit polling in some states contests this idea, where last minute decision voters generally chose Sanders in the end instead of Hillary. It's possible that, had there not been violence, the last minute voter data would have been overwhelmingly in Sanders' favor, but this isn't really enough evidence to truly accept the "Trump Scare" theory. In all five states Hillary won - Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio - she won over the minorities by huge margins. She also managed to narrow the gap when it came to white men, with Sanders only winning by three percentage points. And, despite the article last week, she won over voters who believe that international trade costs the U.S. jobs. Looking at the article last week, that showed Clinton looking bad after talking about coal in Ohio, I think this is really interesting and probably bodes well for her. If she can narrow gaps to this extent that Bernie was really relying on, I think she's looking really good for winning the nomination. I think the perspective on violence at the Trump rallies doesn't actually have an influence on Hillary. I think it's an interesting idea, but also a bit of a stretch.

Hillary and Huma

The first article I read this week is by Jacquelyn Martin, titled "Is Huma Abedin Hillary Clinton's Secret Weapon or Her Next Big Problem?" from Vanity Fair. It looked at Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's aide, and whether or not her role in the White House during the Clinton era poses a problem to Hillary's current campaign. It has been said that Abedin is as close to Hillary as a shadow, and that she is like a second daughter or a sister. Abedin is married to Anthony Weiner, a former congressman embroiled in a 2011 scandal regarding explicit texts. Scandals like this are old hat for the Clinton family, and much like Hillary, Huma stayed married to Anthony Weiner. Her family has also had rumored ties to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and Michelle Bachman wrote a letter to the State Department citing Abedin as someone with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood who had infiltrated the government, although John McCain took to the Senate floor to denounce these claims. Abedin also received financial aid from the Clintons after the scandal involving her husband broke, and there are other questions about her money and salary: is her status as a special government employee (S.G.E.) blurring the line between the public and private sector? Did she submit inaccurate hours for time she didn't actually work? There are concerns that allegations of conflicts of interest and misrepresentation for someone so close to Clinton will become a liability for her looking forward in her campaign. People already attack Clinton for being anti-woman or something silly after staying with Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky Scandal, and people will only start digging deeper for dirt as Hillary is more likely to win the Democratic primary, and then the general election if she is up against Trump. Personally, I'm fascinated by Huma Abedin, and I can't wait to see how this plays out.

The second article is from the New York Times, titled "2 Front Runners, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Find Their Words Can Be Weapons." In this article, Amy Chozick and Alan Rappeport give an overview of the week in politics. Clinton struggled to connect with white, working-class voters in Cleveland after some accidentally disparaging remarks about the coal industry. She has been focused on Cleveland, because of the majority black and democratic population could sway the vote. Unlike Bernie Sanders, she has been successful among African American voters. Sanders claims that he has been focusing on "blue-collar, older male voters" impacted by trade deals. There is concern that Clinton supporters will vote for Kasich in the Ohio elections simply to vote against Trump. Most Clinton supporters, however, are resigned to Trump becoming the Republican candidate. I think the idea that Ohio democrats would entertain the idea of voting for Kasich is interesting, because I was under the impression that they really disliked him. I think this article is also very interesting because it's coming at this from a very biased, anti-Trump angle and, from what I can read into it, very pro-Hillary. From what I can see, this is only further proof that the nominees will boil down to Hillary and Trump.

Is Hillary a Winner? Hill Yeah!

     To kick off this blog, the first article I'm looking at is titled "Hillary Clinton's Got This"  by Harry Enten from March 2, 2016. It was first published on FiveThirtyEight, a reputable website that focuses on opinion poll analysis. It looks at the results of Super Tuesday - Hillary winning seven states to Bernie Sanders' four - and Enten argues that the only way Sanders can win the whole thing is through a fundamental shift in the race. This is unlikely to happen, with the election already down to just Clinton and Sanders, unlike the republican race. Enten also looks at the disparity between the number of people of color voting for the two candidates, with Hillary bringing in more votes from African-American and Hispanic voters, whereas Bernie only one in predominantly white states.

     The issues that are being addressed here are the results of Super Tuesday and predictions for an overall winner. Hillary is being slated as a clear winner, and with that in mind, it could influence the election in terms of Bernie dropping out, but that has already been shown to be unlikely (he's not going without a fight). I didn't learn much new information, but I was shocked to see Hillary winning by such huge margins with black and Hispanic voters, because knowing Bernie's history, I would have expected some degree of support for him, even if it wasn't overwhelming. I can't use this information directly because it's not about policy, just statistical analysis, but if I were working on Bernie's campaign, I would take this into consideration. While it's possible that people just aren't voting for him for inherent reasons (read: white man) he still needs to look at changing his tactics were minorities are involved. 

     My second article is from the New York Times, titled "Who Won the Debate? Hillary Clinton is Given the Edge." It was published March 7, 2016 by Alan Rappeport. The article looks at the Sunday night Democratic debate, and Rappeport comes to the conclusion that Hillary won. The debate itself was not campaign altering, but Bernie got a little too heated and stumbled several times whereas Hillary managed to stay on track all night. One thing was agreed, the democrats looked far better than their counterparts, who discussed important national issues like hand size at the last Republican debate. The article ends with quotes from a variety of news publications with varying ideas about the candidates and the debate.

     The problem being addressed is the winner of the most recent debate, and the conclusion is that i was Hillary Clinton. She has consistently set the bar high in debates, so I don't know how much it will really be a game changer in the election, I think very little will be at this point on the democrat's side, this question is more appropriate for the republicans. I didn't learn much from the article, I wish it had gone more in-depth about the debate, which I missed most of. It didn't focus much on the reasoning behind Hillary's good performance, other than mentioning minor flaws for Bernie (who, to be fair, I did hear horrible reviews of on Sunday night). I think Mr. Sanders could use this information, because I think he does need to realize at some point that the finger waving and some interruptions is not going to win him any points.

Until next week,

Maddie