The “Student Blog Post” series invites students from my PLS 321: Electoral Process course to author their own blogs about recent election events. 

2016 is shaping up to be one of the most entertaining and important elections in recent American history. The incoming president will have to inherit the current issues plaguing the nation. One of the most important issues when it comes to voters is the current struggle to defend the country against terrorist groups such as ISIS and eliminate such groups completely. While the current administration has taken an approach that does not involve the deployment of troops abroad, candidates of the Republican party have taken things to the extreme. The G.O.P. front-runners including Ted Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson and Donald Trump all have expressed their fears and concerns over such terrorist groups. However, they have done so in a way that discriminates against the millions of Muslim Americans that are simply trying to live peaceful lives.

According to the book The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion by John Zaller, people’s attitudes and ideas about politics are created by his RAS model. His model explains that information is obtained from media and politicians, and the most recent information is stored and used to create our own opinions. In the last several months, candidates like Donald Trump have spewed racist and insensitive messages about minorities including Muslims but also Mexicans. When people of Caucasian or affluent backgrounds hear this sort of rhetoric on television or other forms of media, it might have the potential to instill fear in them. All people have fear about what they do not understand, and candidates such as Donald Trump use fear mongering to take advantage of people.

Much like Adolf Hitler during the late 1930s, Donald Trump is using a minority group as a scapegoat and instilling fear and hate into right wing supporters. While Trump’s racist and insensitive remarks has been fodder for social media and television news, Donald Trump has managed to maintain a steady lead over other Republican frontrunners. In a recent speech Trump gave, he stated that the United States should halt all Muslims from entering the country. Trump said this to a rousing ovation, but was quickly denounced by members of both the Democratic and Republican Party following the speech. In a statement on December 8, 2015, White House Secretary Josh Earnest said at a press conference that, “What Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as president”. Earnest stated that the president’s job was to protect the ideals and freedoms given by the United States Constitution.

Donald Trump has become an anomaly in American politics, and one that seems to not be going away any time soon. His ability to say whatever he wants and remain ahead in the polls is an eye opening revelation for Americans as it has shown the underlying racism of the Republican Party. It has also shown Trump’s ability to manipulate and benefit from this not always underlying racism. As the election grows near, it will be interesting to see how the GOP counters this sort of rhetoric. History has shown that political polarization is on the rise, with candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump who are on vastly opposite sides of the political spectrum. As time goes on and as both parties become more extreme, I believe we can expect more of the type rhetoric that Donald Trump has spewed in recent months. Only time will tell if Donald Trump’s political luck is running out, and if so which candidate will finally take the reigns for the Republic Party.

Mitchell Loera is a senior at Cal Poly Pomona who studies political science. He likes staying informed on politics, watching baseball, piña coladas and getting caught in the rain.

The “Student Blog Post” series invites students from my PLS 321: Electoral Process course to author their own blogs about recent election events. 

A series of coordinated terrorist attack that occurred in Paris on the evening of November 13, 2015 have caused a tremendous concern in the United States. Terrorists struck different places such as cafes, restaurants and a music venue in Paris. Those shootings and bombings killed a total of 130 innocent people and 368 injuries. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant accepted responsibility for the attacks by saying that it was for the retaliation for the French airstrikes on ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq. As right now, France are attacking Syria by sending air strikers to the country. President Obama came out with a solution plan to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States, which is causing a huge controversy. The United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed “Republican-backed” legislation in order to suspend Obama’s program to refugee Syrians into this country. This does not mean that they are ignoring the issue that is happening in Syria or that they simply do not want to help. The Republicans in the House of Representatives are trying to protect their own country while finding better ideas to support Syria.

Many Americans see the United States historically as welcoming to immigrants; however accepting refugees from Syria has created concerns for many North Americans. Some Republicans mentioned that some refugees could be militant bent on attacking the United States and that is also a concern that many people have regarding Obama’s program. This issue led Americans to think whether admitting Syrian refugees would put Americans at risk or not. Republican representative Lamar Smith of Texas said, “Terrorist organizations have already said they are going to use the refugee program to try to infiltrate the United States.” Unfortunately, it is clear that bringing refugees could be a threat for the United States of America and civilians. House Speaker Paul Ryan recommended a pause in admitting refugees from Syria because “it’s better to be safe than sorry.” Based on a survey, fifty-three percent of U.S. adults say that the nation should not continue a program to resettle up to 10,000 Syrian refugees, twenty-eight percent would keep the program, while eleven percent say that only Christians should be accepted.

Another option was placed on the table in order to support Syrians since President Obama’s strategy was not very convincing for many Americans. The plan is to send 10,000 American troops to the Islamic States to defeat ISIS. Republicans believe that with a broader diplomatic and military strategy could stop the flow of foreign fighters. This option has also been a controversy for many Americans and brings two options without a decision. Even though providing military troops to Islamic States is an option, President Obama is opposed to it. Based on a survey in whether to send U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria, sixty-four percent of Republicans support it, and fifty-nine percent of Democrats oppose the idea. Other Americans argue that the United States should focus to protect their own country and citizens.

Joel Urzua is currently a fifth year student pursuing a political science and Spanish degree at California State University Polytechnic, Pomona. He enjoys advocating for former foster youth, traveling and hanging out with friends.

The “Student Blog Post” series invites students from my PLS 321: Electoral Process course to author their own blogs about recent election events. 

Bernie Sanders, the junior United States Senator from Vermont, and the longest-serving Independent in the Senate, has been coined as the “Millennial’s Candidate”. With his ultra-left wing policies, dubbed as “Democratic Socialist” by Sanders himself, supporting the legalisation of marijuana, making public university tuition free, and his plan to bring minimum wage up to $15 an hour, he is quite appealing to the younger generation, specifically college students, who tend to be more liberal. You can’t log onto Facebook or Twitter or even Reddit without seeing an influx of posts discussing how Bernie Sanders is a revolutionary, and how he is the most qualified presidential candidate. It is easy to jump onto the bandwagon of undying support for a candidate, but to ignore the things that do not coincide with the rosy picture painted of them is dangerous. So, do millennials really know what Sanders stands for, or are they just following their peers?

In a study conducted by The Pew Research Center, titled “What Americans Know: 1989-2007”, the researchers evaluated political knowledge based off of certain categories, which were age, gender, geographic location, level of education, income, and party identification. The study found that 18-29 year olds were 56% likely to have “low political knowledge”, with only 15% likely to have “high political knowledge”. The study concluded that while the times are changing, level of political knowledge does not–it stays low–despite new technologies and ways to learn about politics. Thus, looking at these results, it can be reasonably inferred that maybe millennials do not actually know what they are talking about in terms of politics, and that maybe their support for Sanders is blind.

Now let’s apply The Pew Research Center’s study to what millennials think of Bernie Sanders versus what Sanders’ political stances actually are. One of the biggest and most compelling arguments that is the consensus among college students for Bernie Sanders is that he has never wavered in any of his political beliefs–or that he is not a flip-flopper. But, upon further inspection, it can be learned that Sanders has voted in such a way that directly contradicts his current policies and rhetoric used in speeches and rallies. For example, Bernie Sanders has never once voted against a federal budget increase for the military, despite him discussing how he wants to lower military spending in his rallies. He’s also voted to fund all military intervention following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, although urging for less US military involvement in the Middle East. Sanders also subscribes to the notion that migrant workers hurt U.S. jobs/the economy and is against an open borders policy, despite being very pro-immigration reform during rallies and debates. Lastly, despite calling himself a socialist, Sanders voted to cut Food Stamps by $8.7 billion in 2014, a program that feeds roughly 46 million Americans a year. How do these large discrepancies in political stances make it past the minds of so many supporters of Sanders? Do millennials not know these things because they are not educated, or because they are simply jumping on the bandwagon without doing their own critical research?

Perhaps the answer to these questions lie within two other studies– the Columbia and Michigan studies. The Columbia Study concluded that people tend to vote with their social group, while the Michigan study furthered that research and concluded that the biggest influencer in a person’s vote is party identification. So, maybe millennials are all supporting Sanders because that is simply the position that their social group has taken. Or maybe millennials are supporting Sanders because college-aged students are the most liberal people in the country who overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

In conclusion, we, as millennial voters, must be able to remain nonpartisan and critical when evaluating candidates. Just because everyone around you is gunning for a specific candidate, does not mean you should follow suit without doing your own research, no matter your party identification. Politician’s stances are not always as they seem.

Emily Croucher is a third-year senior Agriculture student at California Polytechnic State University, Pomona. She enjoys American politics, conspiracy theories, horses, and hopes to attend law school upon graduation.

The “Student Blog Post” series invites students from my PLS 321: Electoral Process course to author their own blogs about recent election events. 

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Paris on the 13^th of November, there was a major shift in discussion by presidential candidates from both major political parties regarding not only the attacks but also American foreign policy. The question of American foreign policy has been a hot topic discussed on the campaign trail by many Republican candidates, who see these attacks as confirmation of their assertions: That the United States’ current administration has a foreign policy that puts the US at far too great of a risk of attack.

On the Republican side, we can note the comments made in the days following the Paris Attacks by Jim Gilmore, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul and John Kasich, as well as the positions adopted by Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and Marco Rubio. Gilmore, Fiorina, Paul and Kasich, who were present at the Sunshine Summit, a meeting of major conservative activists with the Republican candidates, focused on the need for a more expansive and realist approach to foreign policy, especially in regards to dealing with the Islamic State. Gilmore described the Paris Attacks as being “basically 9/11 for France”, emphasizing that “it should be bringing to the forefront of the American people that we are at war, that we’re still in danger, that if anything things have deteriorated under this administration.” Similarly, Carly Fiorina was strongly outspoken on the topic, stating that “the murder, mayhem, danger and tragedy we see unfolding in Paris, throughout the Middle East and too often in our own homeland, are the direct consequence of this administration’s policies”, also emphasizing that the United States must make an active and overt effort to rout the Islamic State and other transnational criminal organizations.

On the other side of the aisle, Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’ Malley were asked during the second Democratic Debate, held on the 14^th of November, to discuss their views on the Paris Attacks and what, if any, reaction should be made by the United States. Clinton focused on the United States playing an active role, but emphasizing that while this “cannot be an American fight”, it is vital that the US be willing to take a leadership role. This is juxtaposed with the position taken by O’Malley, who stated that the United States had an obligation to “stand up to evil” and lead from the front. This difference of opinion can in many ways be traced to Clinton’s role as a former Secretary of State, and O’Malley’s role as Governor of Maryland. In Clinton’s case, the success of the Obama Administration, which Clinton was a member of from 2009 to 2013, will reflect her success as a candidate; so long as the Obama Administration’s foreign policy is favorable, Clinton does well in the polls. Conversely, the more of a negative impression the American people have of current foreign policy, the more likely Clinton will see a decline in polls. O’Malley, on the other hand, has taken a strongly proactive stance of dealing with crime domestically since his tenure as the Mayor of Baltimore, a viewpoint he (based on his comments at the debate) will carry over into his stance on transnational crime as it applies to foreign policy.

In summation, the Paris attacks indicate one key change in the presidential race for 2016; where the battlegrounds outlined initially seemed to be centered on domestic and economic policy, the major battleground for this election now appears to be over American foreign policy. As few of the current candidates have built a strong name for themselves on this topic, we may see the race narrow quickly in the coming weeks leading up to the Iowa Caucus on February 1^st.

Samir Warudkar is a sixth year political science student at Cal Poly Pomona who enjoys playing video games, watching movies and philosophical discussion.