Tags Posts tagged with "Hillary Clinton"

Hillary Clinton

Supporters for both candidates are out early on debate day at Hofstra. Photo by Victoria Espinoza

By Victoria Espinoza

A historic political event, which carried what felt like an unprecedented level of uncertainty, took place close to home Sept. 26.

Hofstra University was the place to be, as thousands of reporters, protestors, students and politicians flocked to the Hempstead campus to witness a debate featuring the first female presidential nominee of a major political party in United States history and one of the most powerful businessmen in the world. Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) were the main attraction, but there was so much more to be seen and heard on campus in the hours leading up to show time.

Major news outlets from all over the world covered the event.

The scene was already buzzing around 10 a.m. Businesses set up booths to hand out free debate gear, and MSNBC, Fox News and CNN were already warming up their outdoor stages for a full day of coverage.

Some students carried signs with Clinton and Trump’s name, while others raised humorous, homemade signs with messages like “Mom, please come pick me up, I’m scared.” Freshmen to seniors visited the photo booths and interview stands set up, and seemed enthused and excited to be a part of the historic day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y4EhseIuAE&feature=youtu.be

One of the more popular activities of the day was an inflatable, replica White House for students to jump around in. In the early morning it lit up the parking lot and seemed like a spot students would enjoy a carefree few minutes after the stations focused on national issues were seen.

But soon enough, the inflatable White House became a backdrop for a serious scene.

Dozens of #BlackLivesMatter supporters stood silently arm in arm, in front of the White House. Observers around the area were silent as well.

It was a reminder early on that this debate was not just an exciting event, but also would spur a serious conversation about the state of America, and how it we will be led into the future.

Bernard Coles, a senior at Hofstra, said he wasn’t confident the issues important to #BlackLivesMatter supporters would come up at the debate.

“We’ve been talking nonstop about Brangelina for the past week so I’m not very optimistic about it coming up but I hope so,” he said in an interview. He also said he feels Clinton best represents the #BlackLivesMatter cause.

Black Lives Matter protestors make their presence felt at Hofstra University on debate day. Photo by Victoria Espinoza
Black Lives Matter protestors make their presence felt at Hofstra University on debate day. Photo by Victoria Espinoza

“I feel a thousand times more confident in the direction Hillary Clinton would take the country. She’s been trying to listen to us and support us and represent us for decades and I don’t understand why people are forgetting that.”

Although #BlackLivesMatter was not directly referenced Monday night, moderator Lester Holt asked a question entirely focused on race relations. Both candidates talked about solutions they have proposed to help improve the criminal justice system, while also touching on their personal relationships with ethnic communities.

About a half-mile from the center point of campus was the free speech tent, an area heavily guarded by police where supporters of lesser-known presidential candidates Jill Stein (G) and Gary Jonhson (L) protested their exclusion from the event.

Entrance to the free speech tent required passage through a metal detector and a search of belongings. Officers on horseback lined the street, and at the tent, a man dressed in a polar bear costume spoke out on global warming, and an “election frog” croaked “Rig it, rig it.”

Chris Roy, a Stein supporter, said it was a disgrace that she was not allowed into the debate arena.

“I’m thoroughly disgusted and disturbed and furious,” Roy said in an interview. He questioned why two parties are allowed to make the rules for other minor parties, and said Trump and Clinton should be speaking up to allow the other candidates in.

“She [Stein] is the only one that is in the trenches fighting with the people,” he said. “They’re [Clinton and Trump] both just totally corrupt. They don’t speak out for open debates, which is awful. When you turn on the television all you see is Hillary and Trump.”

Stein has been the presidential nominee for the Green Party for the last two debates, and was escorted off the premises Monday after reportedly failing to present the necessary credentials.

Costumes are used to emphasize political talking points. Photo by Victoria Espinoza
Costumes are used to emphasize political talking points. Photo by Victoria Espinoza

Like Stein, Johnson is not new to the presidential campaign circuit. He has been the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate for the last two elections.

Both candidates have been vocal about being denied the opportunity to debate.

Neither reached the 15-percent polling threshold on national surveys needed by the Commission on Presidential Debates to qualify.

Hofstra students throughout campus donned “Make America Great Again” hats and “I’m With Her” pins, and at the end of the night everyone argued over which candidate had the most success.

After leaving the scene of the debate, and walking out of what felt like a bunker, it seemed like all issues discussed during the day had been forgotten and all that mattered was Clinton and Trump’s performances.

Hofstra’s campus gave a voice to more than just the typical election season rhetoric, and helped remind a reporter like me that this election season is about so much more than just the two candidates who stood on the stage for 90 minutes.

The highly-anticipated first Presidential Debate of the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) was at Hofstra University in Hempstead Sept. 26. TBR News Media’s Victoria Espinoza was on campus taking in the events leading up to debate time at 9 p.m. Check out photos and follow @TBRNewspapers and @ByVEspinoza on Twitter for more.

Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls at this point in the election cycle hardly guarantees victory. Image by Mike Sheinkopf

By Helmut Norpoth

Labor Day marks the unofficial end of summer and, in presidential election years, the traditional beginning of the general election campaign. At this juncture Nate Silver’s popular website, FiveThirtyEight, has all but anointed Democrat Hillary Clinton as the inevitable winner over Republican Donald Trump in November. The 538 forecast based on an aggregation of polls gives Clinton a 70 percent chance, give or take a point, to defeat Trump. It is a victory not only in the popular vote but also in the Electoral College. The polling averages produced by RealClearPolitics and The Huffington Post agree. They all have shown a Clinton lead for months, punctured only briefly when Trump clinched the GOP nomination in primaries or won it at the Republican National Convention. Polls are shining a bright light on Clinton’s prospects while casting a dark shadow on Trump’s. So it seems. How serious should we take these poll-driven forecasts?

By now we have lived with scientific polls in American presidential elections for 80 years. It started in 1936, when George Gallup conducted the first poll of a representative sample of American voters. For the record, he got it right that year. Few readers may be old enough to remember. Franklin Roosevelt was running in 1936 against … quick, who was the Republican opponent? OK, it was Alf Landon of Kansas. FDR led him in every poll conducted by Gallup and won in one of the biggest landslides — a great start. Gallup would not always be so lucky. In 1948, his polling consistently showed Republican Tom Dewey defeating Democrat Harry Truman, the incumbent president, who wound up with the victory on Election Day.

Back to Labor Day. At this point during the 2008 election cycle, Republican John McCain was ahead of Democrat Barack Obama 49 percent to 44 percent in the Gallup poll. Many probably don’t remember it. McCain’s lead was famously trumpeted as a “game change,” triggered by his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. The strong showing of the GOP ticket in the polls raised the hopes of the McCain camp for a victory in the November, while unnerving the Obama camp. Then the economy took a sudden nosedive as Lehman Brothers collapsed and Wall Street crashed. As the candidate of the White House party, on whose watch this calamity occurred, McCain saw his fortunes tank in the polls. It also did not help that Palin, his vice-presidential candidate, came across as clueless and tongue-tied on television in interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. So, real-life events unfavorable to the White House party and missteps in the election campaign combined to reverse a lead in the polls that one side, McCain in this case, enjoyed at the beginning of the general election campaign. Lesson: Beware of pollsters bearing election forecasts eight weeks before Election Day.

Helmut Norpoth is a political science professor at Stony Brook University and has designed models to forecast elections in the U.S. and abroad. He will be contributing ongoing election analysis ahead of the 2016 election.

by -
0 1232

When we need each other, we come together. That, as much as anything else, is the legacy of 9/11. Its 15th anniversary falls this Sunday.

Every year, we in the news business and, indeed, in society, struggle to know how to remember that terrible day in 2001. Years ago, the editor in chief at the New York Daily News, where I was working, asked me when we should stop running the names of the people who died that day, when 9/11 should no longer be on the front page, and when we should respect the day but give it less coverage. I told him I couldn’t imagine that day.

Those of us who knew people that died think about those people regularly, not just on an anniversary or at a memorial. They travel with us, the way others we’ve lost over the years do, in our hearts and in our minds.

Those first few days and months after the attacks, people in New York stopped taking things for granted and saw the things we share with each other as a source of strength.

This year, in particular, seems a good time not only to remember what makes us and this country great, but also a time to reflect on who we want to be and how we want to interact.

We have two candidates for the White House who seem intent on acting like impetuous Greek gods, shooting weapons at each other and describing each other’s faults and weaknesses to us.

Debate and disagreement are part of this country, just as they were in 1858, when Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas famously debated across Illinois. And yet, despite their disagreements and their passion for office, they held each other in considerably higher esteem than the two unpopular candidates who now want to be president.

How can the two parties that seem so intent on running in opposite directions today, and the two candidates who genuinely loathe each other, work together, come together, and inspire us when they are so obsessed with their animosity?

This Sunday, and maybe even this week, we should remind them — and ourselves — about all the things we Americans felt and did on those days after 9/11. Certainly, we mourned those we’d lost and we wondered aloud about our enemies.

But we also visited with each other, made calls to friends and family, checked on our neighbors, and offered support wherever and however we felt able. Some people donated to charities, while others gave blood, time or energy to helping the survivors and the families of those who lost loved ones.

Yes, we looked to protect ourselves and to understand who and what we were fighting, but we the people — the ones our government is supposed to protect, represent and reflect — became more patient in lines and became less upset over the little things. We looked out for each other.

It’s easy to imagine a boogeyman everywhere we go. Generations of Americans have pictured and envisioned monsters from within and without our borders, intent on destroying our way of life.

We can’t let fear and hatred dictate our actions. I don’t want to hear Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump shout about how unqualified each of them is for office. I want them to reflect a respect for all Americans, their opponents included, on this solemn day and during this solemn week. I don’t doubt that each of them loves America. Instead of telling us how they’ll be great leaders, demonstrate it to us by coming together.

File photo

Though political fighting and manipulation of the media to wage a war may seem like a 21st-century concept, Clinton and Trump will not be breaking any ground this summer and fall when the mud inevitably continues to fly.

By Rich Acritelli

With the presidential election of 2016 upon this nation, it has been a hard fight between former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and businessman Donald Trump. Today, Americans are watching these opponents utilize “mudslinging” and “deceitful” techniques to gain votes, but these tactics have been used almost from the start of this republic.

When President George Washington decided to retire after his second term, his vice president, John Adams, and the former secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson, ran for presidency in 1796. Both of these men liked each other personally, but detested each other politically. This was during the establishment of political parties between the Federalists (Adams) and Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson).

Alexander Hamilton was a dominant leader within the Federalist Party who believed Adams was not psychologically capable of being president. Hamilton urged Federalist politicians from South Carolina to withhold any votes that would help Adams win the election; Hamilton wanted Thomas Pinckney, a Federalist from that state, to become the next president. If Pinckney won, Hamilton estimated it was possible for Adams to gain enough support to be a runner-up as a vice president. Hamilton was unable to achieve this political scenario, and Adams won the election. Jefferson became his vice president from the rival Democratic-Republican Party.

Hamilton again threw his influence into the presidential election of 1800. Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied, and Congress decided the contest. Hamilton supported his chief opponent in Jefferson, due to his notions that Burr was a political tyrant, and motivated congressional leaders to vote for Jefferson to become the third president of the United States. This was also the last election that sought “a winner take all” process for the presidency and vice presidency. The government established the system of running mates elected together to represent either party in the White House after that.

In 1860, the country watched a junior politician in Abraham Lincoln seek the highest position in the land. He was a self-educated leader, a respected lawyer and a one-term representative in Congress. While he did not have the political clout of the other candidates, he served within the Illinois General Assembly. Although it is believed slavery was the cornerstone of his values, he pushed for revisions within the tariff, free labor, the Transcontinental Railroad and the Homestead Act of 1862. He ran against many strong Republicans, and while he defeated William Seward from New York, he later made his rival into a trusted member of his cabinet as secretary of state.

During his failed attempt to win a seat in the U.S. Senate against Stephen Douglas, Lincoln debated he would never support the expansion of slavery in the new states and territories. It was these property rights concerns that the southerner never forgot when Lincoln decided to run for the presidency. When he proved to be a serious candidate, Democratic newspapers that opposed the end of slavery, wrote that Lincoln was “semiliterate, ignorant, an uncultured buffoon, homely and awkward,” according to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. Although Lincoln was perhaps our greatest leader, both Republicans and Democrats were highly unsure about his motives and abilities to lead the nation at the cusp of the Civil War.

Though political fighting and manipulation of the media to wage a war may seem like a 21st-century concept, Clinton and Trump will not be breaking any ground this summer and fall when the mud inevitably continues to fly.

File photo
Grace Marie Damico, St. JamesGrace-Marie-Damico-Presidential-Primaries_2016_05_barkleyw
Q: Will you vote in the primary?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: Because I think that the country is in dire straits right now, and the more people that get out and vote for who they prefer, the better the country will be. Hopefully we can bring this country back.



John Hayes, CoramJohn-Hayes-Presidential-Primaries_2016_04_barkleyw
Q: Will you vote in the primary?
A: Yes
Q: Why?
A: Because it’s too dangerous not to vote. It’s a very important election. I believe Donald Trump is a very dangerous man. I believe that every vote counts against him. If you don’t vote, it’s a vote for Donald Trump.



Charles Spinnato, Port JeffCharles-Spinnato-Presidential-Primaries_2016_06w
Q: Will you vote in the primary?
A: Yes. I want to choose who I want to vote for [and] who I want to be the nominee for the Republican Party. So I would vote in the primaries to make that choice. [It’s a] very interesting election this year.



James Turrill, MasticJames-Turrill-Presidential-Primaries_2016_01_barkleyw
Q: Will you vote in the primary?
A: I’ve never voted in the primaries before but I want to.
Q: Why?
A: I’m fed up with politicians. Look what [U.S. President Barack] Obama has done to this country. He’s destroyed it. I want somebody not like him.

By Giselle Barkley

The 2016 U.S. presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle made their way to New York to continue rallying support this week.

And by next Tuesday, New Yorkers can make a difference when they vote for their nominee in the closed primary.

Suffolk County Republican Chair John Jay LaValle said this is the first primary in three decades where New York State’s vote is this relevant.

“By the time the vote gets to New York, it’s usually over and it’s a functional exercise when the candidates run,” LaValle said.

When asked how running in New York differed from campaigning in other states, LaValle said, “New Yorkers like to hear it straight.” The Republican chair added that voters in this state are very engaged, intelligent and are more skeptical when it comes to casting a vote.

But Lillian Clayman, chair of Brookhaven’s Democratic Committee said “unless there’s this huge ideological chasm with the candidates,” running in New York isn’t much different than in other states.

The presidential primaries allow voters to help determine the presidential nominees for their respective parties. Of the nominees, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump is doing well on Long Island, LaValle said. He added that people are getting tired of hearing the typical political rhetoric they hear from the other 2016 presidential candidates.

Although Clayman said she doesn’t know what’s to come for next week’s primaries, she said Democratic nominees, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) have energized residents, even those who usually don’t vote during the primaries.

Registered voters can choose their nominees on Tuesday, April 19.

Visit elections.ny.gov for more information on deadlines and where residents can vote.

by -
0 1302

By Daniel Dunaief

What Hillary Clinton needs is a slogan. Now that she’s declared that she is, indeed, running for president, she needs to let the world know what she’s all about.

The problem is she’s spent the last quarter of a century in the public eye. How can someone who lost the presidential primary in 2008, whose husband’s peccadilloes provided endless fodder for the late-night TV hosts and whose every move, comment or speech let us know who she is and what she’s all about?

I have a few suggestions:

• “Campaign Clinton IV”: The first two were about Bill, the third one was a dress rehearsal and the fourth time is the real thing.
• “She’s nicer than you think”: That’s not hard to imagine. She doesn’t exactly come across as warm, fuzzy and relatable. She has the opposite public persona of her husband, whose charm and hospitality play so well on TV.
• “25 years in the making”: A woman who has written two autobiographies and who was the first lady for eight years may finally make it out of the primaries.
• “Long day’s journey into the White House”: Borrowing from Eugene O’Neill, Clinton has gone through many dramas, subplots and struggles on her way to running for the most important job in the land.
• “About Time”: Did you see that charming movie with this title with Rachel McAdams? This slogan could suggest it’s about time a woman became president. Then again, maybe if, like the movie, she could travel back in time, she’d change a few things.
• “Let the first family back in”: The Democrats seem to love her these days. Why not suggest that she and her biggest fan, largest supporter and No. 1 asset and liability, return to the White House together?
• “We’ll be back”: I know Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Republican, but wouldn’t it be cool if he introduced her campaign in his Austrian Terminator accent? (Or, perhaps, borrowing from “Jaws II”: “Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the White House again.”)
• “Interns need not apply”: OK, that’s a cheap shot.
• “The ultimate battle of the sexes”: Let’s see who runs the country better, a wife or her husband? We’ve had fathers and sons — the Adamses and the Bushes — and the Roosevelt cousins. How about we try a married couple?
• “Time for new revelations”: Every so often, it seems as if there’s a new revelation about the Clintons. Think about how many more revelations from staff members, former cooks and the U.S. Secret Service we might have if the Clintons once again occupy the White House?
• “The publishing business needs this”: Book publishing and publishing in general don’t seem to be as profitable as in the past. Bookstores are closing and small publishers are struggling to keep up with the endless space in the Internet. Surely a Clinton campaign and, possibly, a presidency would give new life to an industry that desperately needs a few more blockbuster political books before it finds the next Charles Dickens?
• “It’s time to watch late-night TV again”: “Saturday Night Live” and late-night talk show hosts must be cheering the possibility. They don’t even need to create new characters or find people who can look and act like the Clintons.
• “Grandma knows best”: Forget about her role as first lady, senator or secretary of state, who would dare argue with a grandma?

Let battle commence but it’s going to be a long, drawn-out affair. There are still 572 days to go, whatever the slogan.