The Third Presidential Debate

Presidential Debate: What You Missed

In their article “Presidential Debate: What You Missed,” New York Times writers Alexander Burns and Matt Flegenheimer go over the key moments of the third and final presidential debate. On Wednesday evening, much controversy surrounded candidate Donald Trump, who refused to state whether he would accept the results of the election. This action builds on his previous allegations that the democratic system is “rigged” in his opponent's favor. Unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton called Mr. Trump's remarks “horrifying” and “dangerous,” reminding American voters that we should have a greater degree of faith in our democracy if we wish to see it continuously function. The discussion regarding faith in democracy was by far the most controversial and publicized, somewhat overshadowing the discussions on national debt and abortion, which were also heated. Trump’s cynical comments about our democracy, as well as the notion that he may oppose the peaceful transfer of executive power, could lead to a lower degree of voter efficacy. Many share in the sentiment that our government operates through inefficient or undemocratic means, citing the power of influences such as PACs as well as backroom deals. The fact that a controversial political outsider like Donald Trump, who seems skeptical of our democratic system itself, is a major party nominee bodes poorly for our nation.

1. Young Americans have a low voter turnout rate. Why is this and how could comments like Trump’s further impact young Americans?

2. What will happen if voters begin to lose faith in our democratic system?

3. How does the media’s discussion of the third presidential debate influence our thoughts about the issues discussed and our opinion on who won?

The power gerrymandering has given Republicans in 2016

In his article “The power that gerrymandering has brought to Republicans” Julian E. Zelizer discusses the power gerrymandering has given Republicans in 2016. With the way districts are setup now, in most states being determined by state legislatures that are part of a political party, it is impossible for democrats to regain the House until at least 2020 (which is when the next US census is taken and the districts are redrawn). No matter by how much of a landslide Hillary Clinton beats The Donald by, it’ll be impossible for democrats to retake the house even with down-ticket voting having a large effect on the Senate and House races. Unsurprisingly, the author claims that the Republican success has been largely due to gerrymandering and that it is one of the primary causes for gridlock on capitol hill as Republican incumbents have little to worry about as their re-election is almost guaranteed. The fact that in a democratic system it is possible to keep seats in congress just because of the setup of districts which are determined by state legislatures which are affiliated with a political party is very disheartening.

1. Young Americans already have a very low political efficacy, with Gerrymandering becoming more well known is it a possibility for them to stop because young Americans will wonder if they are even making a change?
2. How much of an effect does Gerrymandering have on gridlock and why?
3. Should all states adopt a system similar to that of Californias to decide districts.

What Trump Reveals about Executive Powers and democratic Attitudes 



Trump’s Threat to Jail Clinton Also Targets Democracy’s Institutions

Summary: In their article "Trump’s Threat to Jail Clinton Also Targets Democracy Institutions," authors Max Fisher and Amanda Taub discuss how the claims Donald Trump has made during his election threaten to undermine the core values of American democracy. The authors focus on Trump’s assertions that he would throw Hillary in jail if elected President. Fisher and Taub claim that Trump's words are a threat to the fundamental pillars of the US government, because he suggests that "he alone could determine her fate," as opposed to institutions such as the police or court system. Trump's arguments that the election system is rigged also questions the democratic process that our government relies on. The authors interviewed political scientist Adrienne LeBas, who found parallels between Trump's rise to power and the methods used by authoritarian leaders in “Zimbabwe, Togo, Ethiopia" who also made "explicit threats to imprison opponents.” Overall, Trump could not completely tear down the American democracy, but he certainly could erode it. In the words of LeBas, "“Our institutions and our democratic orientations and attitudes are far weaker than we think they are.”

Connection: Trump's comments make the reader question what he really could accomplish as President. Executive powers are extremely important, especially with candidates that make such bold claims.

Questions:

1. If elected, could Trump actually follow through with his campaign claims (jailing Hillary, building a wall, etc)?

2. What are the limitations on executive powers?

3. Considering the current state of US politics (gridlock), should the President be given more or less power? Why?

Understanding How Polls Affect Voters

Understanding How Polls Affect Voters

Summary: In the article "Understanding How Polls Affect Voters" economist David Rothschild explains the effect that polls have on voters. Changes in voting affects both parties in any election and if polls have a major effect on voters then polls may be huge in swaying the vote to either party's side. The article goes further into depth by explaining human tendencies and how "majority opinion" helps sway votes. The article also talks about the "bandwagon effect in the political domain" and how its swayed voters through its influence in polls.

Connection: Polling is looked to in every election as a means to tell who is winning and who is losing.  If polling has such a great effect on voters then it is important to understand how and why it affects them.

Questions:
In what ways do polls effect voters?
Why are polls effective in swaying voters?
How will polling's roll change as it becomes more or less reliable and used?

Donald Trump vs The New York Times and the Role of Media in the Election

Donald Trump Threaten to Sue The Times Over Article on Unwanted Advances

Summary:

The New York Times recently published an article featuring accusations from multiple women about sexual advances Republican Presidential Nominee, Donald Trump, made on them.  These accusations come on the heels of a tape release that reveals Mr. Trump bragging about sexually assaulting some women.   This article details the Trump Campaign's reaction to the report by sending The New York Times a threat that they will sue the newspaper for defamation against Mr. Trump.  The New York Times responded by saying they are protected under the First Amendment to publish news worthy information on important topics.  The New York Times finished their response by saying "we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him [Mr. Trump] straight."

Connection:

This feud between Mr. Trump and The New York Times details a debate over freedom of speech that mirrors our recent chapter on media.  The New York Times refusal to retract their article displays the power that the media has due to the First Amendment.  This power can be used for good, like The New York Times spreading important information, or can be used for less good motives, like Fox News.

Questions:

Who is in the right between Donald Trump and The New York Times, why?

Does the print media still have a place in the modern news service?

Does the First Amendment give the media too much power to disseminate information?

How the Browning of America is Upending Both Political Parties

How the Browning of America is Upending Both Political Parties

In the article, “How the Browning of America is Upending Both Political Parties” NPR writer Domenico Montanaro describes the changing voting patterns in various demographic groups and their effect on the Democratic and Republican parties. The shift in voting patterns has a direct impact on both parties, but the Democratic party has already “adapted to this demographic change, and is more diverse, more urban and more liberal than at any time in its history.” By 2044, there will not be a single racial majority in the United States of America. Even in this 2016 election, the changing demographic groups can lead to “gaps wider than ever” and change the direction of the election. In conclusion, this topic can't be taken lightly, as the changing demographics may influence the US now and in the future.

Connection: Polling and Public Opinion is heavily dependent on the population, and influences the actions taken by the government. As the demographics of the population changes, the ideology of the public will change as well.  

Questions:

How does the “browning of America” affect the Democratic and Republican parties?

What effect does the decline of the White vote have on the election?

How will shifting demographics affect the United States in the future?

Obamacare and Why People are Dissatisfied

Sorry, We Don’t Take Obamacare

Summary: 

Even though Obama compromised with the prescription drug industry and health insurance industry, Republicans and Democrats alike are displeased with the Affordable Care Act of 2013. In this article, Rosenthal highlights the major drawbacks of Obamacare– the limitations and the price. An interview with Moses, a customer of Obamacare, reveals how limited medical opportunities are, whether it be with who can be your doctor or how many facilities or specialists are available to you. Another issue faced by Obamacare customers are the prices, as in certain plans, out-of-pocket prescription costs can be nearly double that of the average employer offering. Overall, this article emphasizes the struggle of creating Obamacare and the frustration that followed.

Connection: 

As we study health care, it is important to understand not just how the government implements reform, but the effects on and reactions of the public as well. Also, Obamacare is a real life example of how outside interest groups are able to influence the acts themselves.

Questions:

Would the public option have been received better?

What could be changed to the Affordable Care Act to make it better perceived?

Why is it that the majority of modern nations have single payer health care and the US doesn’t?

Where Does Each Candidate Receive Their Funding?

US election 2016: Who's funding Trump, Sanders and the rest?

Summary:
Zoe Thomas, a reporter from the BBC, throughout her article US election 2016: Who's funding Trump, Sanders and the rest? discusses the various financial contributors for each campaign. Hillary Clinton's campaign receives most of its money from corporate lawyers and bankers while Bernie Sander's campaign seems to raise the majority of its money from ordinary people. On the Republican side, Ted Cruz received a bulk of its funds from native Texans and large energy businesses. Marco Rubio and John Kasich acquired a lot of their money from large donors and financial institutions. Finally, Donald Trump has funded his campaign primarily through loans and donations from individuals.

Connection:
Learning about the trends in campaign finance and the major donors will help relay information about the possible problems with the campaign finance system. It will also provide insight into the motivations of each candidate. The article gives some real life examples of the information we recently had learned about in class.

Questions:

What do the sources of each candidates funding say about them?

What do the similarities between Hillary Clinton's donors and many of the Republican's donors say about where she lies on the political spectrum?

Does the abundance of large donors effectively make it useless for the general public to try to influence campaigns through small scale donations?

5 Takeaways From The Vice Presidential Debate

5 Takeaways From The Vice Presidential Debate

Summary: Eric Bradner’s, a news reporter for CNN, article, “5 takeaways from the vice presidential debate,” summarizes the vice presidential debate and discusses the most important aspects of the debate, the winner and what this debate could means for the future. Bradner argues that the five most important takeaways from the debate were: Pence's temperament, Kaine’s hits against Trump, Pence vs. Trump on their foreign policy agenda, Pence’s ability to ignore attacks on Trump, and the fact that America learned nothing about the VP candidates. Bradner argued that Pence’s ability to keep calm while Kaine continuously questioned many of Trump’s arguments helped Pence win the debate, which is crucial due to Trump’s loss in the Presidential debate. However, even with this win, there is still a question whether or not Trump will directly benefit and gain more voters. In addition, a new problem arises between Trump and Pence on their foreign policy. Viewer’s learn that Pence and Trump have different views on foreign policy and specifically the Syrian refugee crisis, which could potentially add tension to their campaign and could result in fewer votes. Another important aspect of the date was Pence’s ability to refrain from taking any of Kaine’s lure’s that attacked Trump. Whenever Kaine would pose a question that painted Trump in a bad light, Pence never addressed them directly, and would instead turn the conversation back to Clinton. However, because Pence avoided the attacks on Trump, he did not help ease the criticism many people have against Trump. Overall, Bradner argues that we didn’t learn much about either VP, we just once again saw how the VP date is a proxy affair where each VP defends their presidential candidate.

Connection: The VP that wins this election will have a large role in our government in the next four years. This VP will have an immense amount of power in the senate, and can be influential in the decision making process. The way the VP’s handle themselves in this debate shows the audience a great deal on how well they will be able to run our country.

Questions:

Do you believe Pence’s win will help Trump win more votes in the election why/why not?

What do you believe is the most significant part of the debate? Why?

Do you believe that there will be a significant problem between Pence and Trump in the future over foreign policy? Do you believe this could affect the voting turn out for these candidates?

Why You Should Watch the Vice Presidential Debate

The Vice Presidential Debate May Not Move The Dial, But It Is Worth Your Time

Summary: In the article "The Vice Presidential Debate May Not Move The Dial, But It Is Worth Your Time", author Emily Tate argues that the American public should be watching the vice presidential debate, even if it will do little to nothing to sway the votes of Americans. Historically, vice presidential debates have never drastically shifted the tides of a presidential election. Even after Lloyd Bentsen's famous jab at Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice presidential debate, Bush and Quayle still managed to come out on top. Tate asserts that the vice presidential debate should be watched because it allows Americans to see who could potentially be assisting in leading this country. Also, there is only one vice presidential debate, so this is the public's one opportunity to get a feel for the candidates before one of them ends up being elected. Yet, most people will predictably skip this debate. This past presidential debate was the most watched in American history because the public likes to watch Trump. Without Trump, says Tate, the vice presidential debate will be very overlooked.

Connection: The VP that wins this election will be the second most important member of the executive branch, and second in line to the presidency. That person will also be in charge of the Senate, being able to cast a tie-breaking vote, as outlined in Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Whoever is elected in November, will be playing a large role in our government for the next four years, whether we watch them debate or not.

Questions:
What steps can candidates or the media take to possibly garner more attention toward the vice presidential debate?
Since there has been low interest in these debates throughout their history, should they no longer be held?
Can vice presidential debates really sway votes?