With just 105 days until our country heads to the voting booth in one of the most volatile times of our lives, I thought it would be a good idea to turn to what the polls are reflecting regarding the state of the race. In a completely non-partisan point of view, this article will describe what these numbers mean, what the two candidates should be optimistic and concerned about, and the path forward that I believe Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump should take as November falls upon us.

What the Polls are Saying

In an updated average of 2020 presidential polls by FiveThirtyEight, Joe Biden holds an 8.8% percent lead over the incumbent, with the percentages showing a 50.4%-41.6% split as of 7/21/20. As one could assume, this conveys a Joe Biden lead as of right now. However, as we saw in 2016, being up in the polls is not a bulletproof indicator of victory, and being down is not the last nail in the coffin. In extremely polarized America, seemingly large leads in the polls have proven to be unsustainable in the volatile field of politics. Hillary Clinton famously held an advantage over Trump in polling throughout the 2016 campaign, and we all know what happened in November that year. Additionally, large leads have also shown to not pan out on election day. In the last 25 years, only Barack Obama in 2008 won an election by more than 3.9 points. However, the 2008 election was defined by a politics-shifting event (the Great Recession), which holds very similar undertones to what is going on in this election year with COVID-19. Basically, what I’m trying to get at is this election is nowhere near decided for either candidate. Both Trump and Biden have things to learn from the polls, and I will be going into depth regarding what they are.

For the Biden Camp

Obviously, every candidate would love to be up in the polls. However, as whispers of 2016 complacency still haunt the Democrats, Biden has projected a tone of disregarding the polls, quite literally telling his social media followers to "disregard the polls”, as there still is work to do. Although it is true that Clinton also had a sizable lead at this moment 4 years ago, the lead Clinton had at her peak was not as large as the advantage Biden holds today (Clinton held a 43%-39% lead at this time, while Biden holds one of 50%-41%). However, it is important to note that a large component of the Biden group is supporting him in spite of Trump, not in direct support of the former Vice President. This serves as good news for Trump (for reasons I will discuss below). With that in mind, the Biden camp should maintain their strategy of keeping Biden out of the national news cycle (limiting opportunities for his famous gaffes to steal headlines), focusing on the debate, and taking selective shots at Trump’s perceived deficits in leadership and character, both of which are traits that drive many undecided voters away from the incumbent. The Trump campaign plans on hitting Biden hard on his cognitive abilities, so if Biden can stick to teleprompter-structured media productions from his Delaware home, the opportunity for these punches to land diminishes incredibly. It is no secret that Biden supporters have an enthusiasm problem. Many in the Democratic party, especially young progressives, see him as a hand-picked establishment candidate. If Biden plans on consolidating the warring factions of the Democratic party under his campaign, he must tow a fine line by appeasing to further left individuals, while also maintaining his image as the sensible moderate.

In terms of good news for Biden, the Democratic nominee has proven in the polls to make inroads in the areas Secretary Clinton failed to, one of which being likability. In the 2016 election, Trump successfully used voters' disdain for Clinton to his advantage, causing many suburban, college-educated white people to reluctantly vote for him. Even among voters who disliked both Trump and Clinton, Trump won by 17 points. In 2020, Biden is reversing this nuance. Among voters who dislike both Biden and Trump, Biden wins the group by 58 points in a recent NBC/WSJ poll. Additionally the Trump attacks that hurt Hillary (see "Crooked Hillary") have not enjoyed nearly the same amount of success in 2020. The Trump A big reason for this is Trump’s perceived handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, Biden has been able to make inroads into the Trump base, winning suburban areas, and decreasing Trump’s numbers among white voters from +20 to +7, men from +11 to +2. And whites with no college education from +37 to +22. Although Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, her failure came from an inability to carry light blue states in the Midwest, where disillusioned white, working class voters aligned more with the populist Trump message, rather than the "elitist DC insider" look Clinton carried. However, as shown above, Biden is performing a lot better in among those with no degree, and white people as a whole. If Biden is able to perform well in these cohorts, coupled with his increased support from minorities and women, states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, and even Texas may very well be battlegrounds/leaning blue.

In summary, here are some key points for the Biden campaign:

• Stay away from the limelight, and prevent a meltdown on the debate stage

• Continue to make inroads among both working class and white, suburban voters, increasing the different avenues for an electoral victory

• Try more to make a case for why Biden SHOULD be president, not why Trump SHOULD NOT have another term

For the Trump Camp

Although the polls show Trump is down, many Republicans will say that these indications may not hold come November, and that is true, One thing the Trump campaign should be encouraged by is the aforementioned “enthusiasm” factor. A good amount of voters currently support Biden due to their disdain Trump. Why is that good for the Republican? Because if these voters are voting because of their perceived view of the president, these polls may very well be convey a current high-water mark for Biden, and not an actual permanent shift from Trump. Basically, disdain is temporary, and if Trump can deliver wins in the next 3 months, these voters could flock back to the 45th president. Trump is being hit hard on his handling of COVID-19, the economy’s performance in light of this, and race relations. If Trump can see Coronavirus subside in effect as the months go on, and the economy starts to rebound, disillusioned voters may swing back in the incumbents favor. Additionally, if Trump can successfully paint the Democrats as the party of violence and rioting in wake of the race protests (a strategy Nixon used in 1972 after the events following MLK’s death), he could potentially win back scared suburban votes (who, as it seems, left in swaths to Biden). The Trump campaign has a huge war chest in funding, meaning they can produce countless TV ads on Biden, hoping one of the attacks sticks with voters. If this happens, he could potentially recreate the 2016 Clinton disillusionment factor stated above. Trump has made a lot of comments on Biden’s supposed cognitive decline, and if Biden makes a gaffe on the debate stage (causing negative news cycles for the Democrat), Trump may have an opportunity to surge in the polls.

The issue with all this? Due to the events in 2020, Trump has dug himself into a tough point. His lack of appeal has increased in the past 4 years, with 50% of voters in a recent WSJ poll stating that they would never vote for the Republican (in comparison to 37% for Biden). This proves that Trump has major work to do regarding his perception to the average voter. Additionally, Trump may see a scenario similar to John McCain in 2008, in which the financial crisis defined the incumbent Republican party, causing voters to vote for Barack Obama in historic numbers. Whether Republicans would like to hear it or not, the Trump presidency will be defined by COVID-19 in the same light as the Great Recession. Voters, especially suburban ones, have viewed the Trump administration’s response to this negatively. Those polled tend to see Dr. Fauci in a favorable way, and regard masks as something that should be actively promoted. If Trump would like to produce an uptick in his approval rating, it may be in his best interest to heed more to the cautionary CDC in regards to schools and businesses reopening. Also, it may bode well for him to wear a mask more often form a vernacular point of view. If not, he may be defined by a lackadaisical response as cases continue to surge, putting both him and down-ballot candidates on a sinking ship. Lastly, although his core base thoroughly enjoys it, Trump’s abrasiveness and lack of filter has cost him support. Whether it be his tweets or interviews, cohorts including suburban voters and women especially have not viewed the president as someone who has been as “professional” as his predecessors in terms of unfiltered rhetoric. Trump’s team may view his as a facet that needs touching up on as the race enters its final stretch.

In summary, here are some key points for the Trump campaign:

• A second term hinges on how the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy fare in the next couple of months

• Changing tone on the COVID-19 response to align more with the cautionary agenda may gain him some points

• Promoting himself as the “law and order” candidate may help him in states like Florida, Wisconsin, and Michigan

• It is extremely important for him to “win” the debates

The dismantlement of DACA, or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, has been an important part of the Trump Administration’s plans since the administration first got into office in 2017. The DACA program was created in 2012 by President Obama and allows for immigrants who were brought here illegally as children to be temporarily shielded from deportation. This protection lasts for two years at a time, and is renewable. It is not, however, a citizenship pathway, but does come with a variety of benefits. DREAMers (a common name for participants in the program after the failed 2001 Dream Act) have permission to remain in the country, can get work permits, health insurance from their employers, and a number of other benefits. There are a few stipulations for being in the program, the two biggest being that the participant must have either graduated from high school or been honorably discharged from the military, and must pass a background check. Additionally, DREAMers do pay taxes, go to college, and own businesses, contrary to some statements made by President Trump.

Since 2017, President Trump and his administration have been attempting to strike down the program. The reasoning for the strikedown consisted of the argument that President Obama’s executive order to create the program was an unconstitutional abuse of power. This reasoning is summed up with then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ argument that “such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch.” This was the extent of the justification given for the dismantlement, and later statements relied almost completely on then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ opinion that the creation of the program was unconstitutional.

After this initial attempt to disband the program, which would take away protection from the 700,000 current participants in DACA, immigration activists have been able to keep the program partially functional. There have been no new applications accepted since 2017, yet some protections from the program remain in place. These immigration activists have brought the strikedown of the program to the courts. Some lower courts have argued that the Trump Administration’s takedown of DACA is unconstitutional, and have allowed for those who are already protected to renew their status for the time being. The issue was brought before the Supreme Court, who issued a ruling on June 18. The Supreme Court stated in the 5-4 decision that the Administration could not rescind a program without adequate justification. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Supreme Court does “not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern.” Instead, he says that they “address only whether the Administration complied with the procedural requirements in the law that insist on 'a reasoned explanation for its action.’”

Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion doesn’t argue with President Trump’s ability to remove DACA, or any program like it, but must go about it the proper way. In order to disband DACA, the Administration must take responsibility for what will certainly be a complicated process, instead of placing the blame on someone else and calling it a day.This decision, while still an important one, does allow for the Trump Administration to try again to dismantle DACA, if they so choose. If reelected, President Trump most likely would attempt to strikedown the program again, although there is probably not enough time to do so before the November election.

There is support and criticism for the decision from all of the usual places: Former Vice President Joe Biden praised the decision while President Trump accused the court of “not liking him,” and called it “horrible and politically charged.”

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-upholds-daca-in-blow-to-trump-administration

https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-daca.html

As 2020 continues to be the most interesting year in a long time, it can be easy to forget that there is also a presidential election this fall. The candidates are Former Vice President Joe Biden, from the Democrats, and President Donald Trump, from the Republicans. The most recent polls are showing Vice President Biden in the lead with 50% of voters, and President Trump behind him at 43%. Not only do these numbers show Vice President Biden beating Donald Trump by one of the largest margins in decades, but they are particularly important because of the 2016 election. In 2016, even when Hillary Clinton was above Donald Trump in the polls, she was never above 50%, always in the mid-low 40s.

These recent changes in poll numbers could be caused by President Trump’s handling of the recent protesting. After the death of George Floyd, the country has been plunged into a period of massive protests protesting the way that African-Americans have been treated in this country- mass incarceration, false arrests, harsher punishments, and most importantly: police brutality. According to an NPR poll, 67% of Americans believe that President Trump has made racial tensions worse. He has posted many controversial Tweets, most famously a Tweet where in response to looting of some businesses after and during the riots, he stated that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Many Americans view this Tweet in particular as a threat to American citizens, particularly repulsive because it came from the President of the United States of America.

Alongside the Tweets, President Trump’s most infamous act that has inflamed racial tensions and possibly contributed to Vice President Biden’s rise in the polls is the images of Trump at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. Leading up to the taking of these pictures, President Trump authorized the use of force to remove peaceful protesters from Lafayette Park. He then posed with a Bible in his hand in front of the Church, and took additional photos with Trump Administration officials. This was criticized by many important figures on both sides of the aisle. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement: “Tear-gassing peaceful protestors without provocation just so that the President could pose for photos outside a church dishonors every value that faith teaches us.” Republican Senator Ben Sasse, of Nebraska, said “There is no right to riot, no right to destroy others’ property ... but there is a fundamental – a Constitutional — right to protest, and I’m against clearing out a peaceful protest for a photo op that treats the Word of God as a political prop” in response to President Trump’s actions.

Perhaps though, the most important criticism of President Trump’s actions come from retired general General James Mattis, (the U.S. Secretary of Defense from January 2017 to January 2019), a former member of the Trump Administration. In an article in the Atlantic, Gen. Mattis wrote that “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people – does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us.” Gen. Mattis’s statement comes after the president’s photo op on June 1st, but is also in response to threats to send the United States military into the streets to quell the protesting. This statement is particularly important because of Gen. Mattis’s silence on President Trump’s job performance since his resignation from the post of Secretary of Defense in December of 2018.

These events, statements, and actions, alongside many Americans’ sense that President Trump did not properly handle the coronavirus pandemic, may all be major contributing factors to Vice President Joe Biden’s rise in the polls.

Sources:

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2020/06/05/george-floyd-protests-trump-church-photo-curfew-park/3127684001/

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/871098294

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/

Hydroxychloroquine, besides being a mouthful to say, has been identified as a possible treatment for COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine is a quinoline medicine that is typically used to treat malaria. Malaria is a disease common in Africa, South America, and Southern Asia and is caused by mosquito borne parasites. The drug is also sometimes used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus.

Recently, hydroxychloroquine has been authorized by the FDA for use in emergency situations only for COVID-19 patients who have been hospitalized. On April 30th, the FDA cautioned against using hydroxychloroquine, or chloroquine, a related drug, outside of a hospital due to heart rhythm risks. Since then, President Trump announced that he has been taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventative measure after a top White House aide was diagnosed with COVID-19.

Today, May 27, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and top Trump administration official, clearly stated that a hydroxychloroquine treatment is not effective in treating COVID-19. This morning on CNN, Dr. Fauci explained that ”the scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy.” However, Dr. Fauci has not yet called for a complete ban on the drug, although it is expected for him to do so. Internationally, France has banned the drug and the WHO has stopped clinical trials with the drug. It is known that long-term or high-dosage use of hydroxychloroquine can lead to vision issues and irreversible damage of the retina.

Also on CNN, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked her thoughts about President Trump’s decision to take hydroxychloroquine as a preventative measure against COVID-19. Speaker Pelosi did not agree with President Trump’s decision, stating "as far as the President is concerned, he's our President and I would rather he not be taking something that has not been approved by the scientists, especially in his age group and in his, shall we say, weight group -- morbidly obese, they say. So, I think it's not a good idea." The comment about President Trump’s weight is the most recent in a long line of somewhat rude public exchanges between the two. Despite the fact that President Trump is according to the White House physician, not actually morbidly obese, Speaker Pelosi does make an excellent point about the dangers of taking drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine, that have not been proved to be effective against COVID-19.

Sources:

-https://www.drugs.com/hydroxychloroquine.html

-https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/27/fauci-hydroxychloroquine-not-effective-against-coronavirus-283980

-https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

-https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/politics/nancy-pelosi-donald-trump-fat-hydroxychloroquine/index.html

If you follow politics and politicians, you’ve probably seen the term PAC come up. PAC is short for Political Action Committee, and they’re being mentioned more and more in the news and politics. A PAC is an organization that raises money privately to influence elections or legislation, especially at the federal level. PACs are formed by a variety of groups, most commonly corporations, labor unions, trade associations, and groups. They’ve been around since 1944, but they became more important in American politics after the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

Types of PACs

There are different kinds of PACs, and they have different rules and regulations that govern them. All PACs must register with the Federal Election Committee (FEC) within 10 days of its formation. Because of that, you can actually find a report of all of the active PACs on the FEC’s website. In general, PACs are limited to giving $5000 to a campaign per candidate, per election.

Beyond just general PACs are two types of special PACs: Leadership PACs and Super PACs. Leadership PACs are basically politicians funding other politicians. The politician raises money for others in their party who are running for a higher office. When this happens, it usually means that that politician themself will be seeking a higher office in the future. Secondly, there are Super PACs. These first became legal in 2010 after the Speechnow vs. FEC case. Super PACs make no contributions to individual candidates or parties, but instead make independent moves to further whoever they support in a federal election. This includes communicating with the people directly, such as sending mail or running ads supporting a candidate. Super PACs do not follow the same rules as generic PACs in that they are not limited in how much money they can contribute to a campaign.

Refusing PAC Money

More and more politicians, mostly Democrats, have labeled their campaigns as “grassroots,” and are refusing money from PACs- especially corporate PACs. They have pledged to only take money directly from the people. It’s a tactic designed to convince voters that the politician is not funded by corporations, and therefore free from doing corporate bidding in their legislation. Generally speaking, this pledge is more symbolic than anything else. Many times, the candidates running with a grassroots campaign are not incumbents, and therefore do not get very much funding from PACs. Even if candidates are getting funding from PACs for their campaign, it is oftentimes very little. However, pledging to not take this money attracts voters and helps the politician get more money from individual donors.

This business of refusing PAC money, especially corporate PAC money, can get very very messy. Oftentimes, the corporate PAC money does not come from the corporation itself, but the employees of the corporation. The PAC simply organizes and collects the money to be donated to the candidate. The candidate can still accept money from the company's executives and employees directly while making good on their promise to not take money from PACs and end up receiving more money total than they would have from the corporate PAC. In the case of Super PACs, the money is sometimes just organized by the PAC, but still comes from individual donors. Not taking this money just because it was organized by a PAC limits the money that politicians can spend on their campaigns, and makes the donors whose money was organized by the PAC essentially worthless.

Supporters of the movement of refusing PAC money argue that although the money taken from PACs is small, not taking it sends a clear message to the voters. It shows voters that the politician, if/when elected to Congress, will be putting the people’s interests first, because they were entirely funded by the people. The symbolic message of the refusal is a powerful step in reforming the way that campaigns are financed, and the way that the government functions in America.

Sources:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacfaq.php

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-so-many-democratic-candidates-are-ditching-corporate-pacs/568267/

Today, May 7, 2020, the father and son who shot and killed Ahmaud Arbery in a coastal city about midway between Savannah, Georgia, and Jacksonville, Florida were arrested and charged with murder. Gregory McMicheal, a 64-year-old former police officer, and his adult son Travis, 34, were captured on video shooting and fatally wounding Arbery. In the video, it shows Arbery jogging in athletic clothes when a pickup truck with two armed men inside stopped in front of him on an empty street. In an effort of self-defense, Arbery attempted to wrestle the gun out of one of the man’s hands. Only moments later, a gunshot is heard and Arbery is seen stumbling to the ground, falling face down. The two men had claimed that Arbery was armed and had recently committed a burglary in the area. Arbery was in fact unarmed, and was not a suspect in any of the break-ins. Arbery was a former high school football player who liked to stay active, engaging in jogging activities throughout the day. Our hearts go out to Ahmaud, who would have turned 26 years old on Friday.

This murder actually occurred on February 23, but the men were not arrested until 74 days after committing the crime. This hasn’t been Georgia’s first run in with a delayed response to violence against innocent black men. In the shooting of a black former air force veteran, Anthony Hill, by a white police officer, it took four years for the officer to get charged and receive jail time. As for Arbery, in the police report, they deemed this an act of self-defense by the two men, who claimed they were attacked by Arbery. The video was released recently and outrage ensued. It wasn’t difficult for an onlooker to realize that Arbery was innocent in this situation, being another murdered unarmed black man in a long-standing list of those who preceded him.

Through movements such as #runwithahmuad and the long standing Black Lives Matter movement, people are calling for reform in the legal system and police force. On the other hand, there are those who oppose movements such as Black Lives Matter, citing that the issue is not about race. Former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee claims, “If we have a shooting, we end up assuming that it had to be racial, when in fact, as we know more white people have been shot by police officers this year than minorities.” Huckabee is not factually incorrect in this statement. In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues to the present. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race). According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers. Huckabee is citing misleading statistics, although technically the raw number of Caucasians being shot and killed by the police is larger, black people are still 2.5 times more likely to be a target of police brutality. If we restrict the analysis to only unarmed victims, that number jumps from 2.5 to approximately 5. In 21st-century America, unarmed black people are still 5 times more likely to be a victim of a police killing than white Americans.

Many observers, such as former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, still refute this statistic. Giuliani claims that although black people are more likely to be killed by the police, the problem that the black community should “focus on” is black on black violence. The problem is, Giuliani is wrong about this statistic as well. According to FBI numbers from 2014, about 90 percent of black homicide victims were killed by other black people. The “white-on-white” murder rate that same year — homicides in which a white person was killed by another white person — was 82 percent of all murders of white people. With only a 8% increase for black-on-black compared to white-on-white violence, Giuliani’s claim that the black community suffers from significantly more violence than other groups lacks credibility.

With all of this laid out, the question still stands. What can we do about this? The organization Campaign Zero outlines the following proposals:

• The end of policing minor “Broken Windows” offenses such as marijuana possession, disorderly conduct, trespassing, loitering, spitting, jaywalking and disturbing the peace (including loud music). The organization claims that these offenses are often used to police black individuals, the decriminalization or the de-prioritization of them could help end violence against black people.

• The end of profiling and stop-and-frisk. The establishment of forcible protections against profiling to prevent police from intervening in civilians’ lives for no reason other than suspicion could aid in the fight against police brutality. Campaign Zero believes that there should be a ban on profiling against immigration status, age, housing status, sexual orientation, gender, disability, race, religion and national origin.

• Establish alternative approaches to mental health crises. The organization argues that mental health crises should not be excuses for heavy-handed police interventions and that they are best handled by mental health professionals. Campaign Zero proposes to establish fundamental health response teams to respond to crisis situations. “These approaches have been proven to reduce police use of force in these situations by 40 percent.”

This is a hard time for people who have been affected by police violence. Please be sure to reach out to those you know and offer solidarity and comfort with them. Our hearts go out to the friends and family of Ahmaud Arbery and hope that instances like these will soon be a relic of history.

Sources: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/07/ahmaud-arbery-video-shooting-arrests-justice-mcmichael/3086891001/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-arrest.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/11/arent-more-white-people-than-black-people-killed-by-police-yes-but-no/

https://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutions#solutionsoverview

Voting and voting rights have always been a controversial issue in American politics and society. Almost all American history classes will tell you this, from “No taxation without representation” to Women’s Suffrage to the Civil Rights Movement. However, the percentage of eligible voters in America who actually vote has been decreasing overall since 1876.

In 1876, the United States saw its peak in voter turnout: 81.8% of eligible voters voted in that year’s presidential election. As the years went on, the voter turnout declined. By 1904, just 28 years and 7 presidential cycles later, the voter turnout had dropped to 65.2% of eligible voters. In 2016, the most recent presidential election, the voter turnout numbers dropped to a 20-year low: only 55% of eligible voters voted.

Why is this phenomenon occurring? Well, some of it has to do with history. In 1876, the United States was in the Gilded Age, where political machines encouraged people to vote and provided incentives to people for voting for the machine’s candidate. As the century turned, the United States was pushed into the Progressive Era, where the corruption of these political machines was exposed and they were dismantled. Less people voted because there were less reasons to do so.

The presidential elections are generally the peak of voter turnout, and in the 21st century, it is a low peak. The percentage of registered voters in the 21st century is on average higher than 75%, yet the voter turnout percentage is in the 50s. There are a few reasons for this, such as restrictive voting laws in some states, the popularity of the opinion that a single vote doesn’t matter, and citizens feeling disgruntled with our political system. There isn’t a big specific reason for the low voter turnout in the United States, but more of a bunch of little reasons working together to create a big problem.

Statistics sources: The American Presidency Project, University of California Santa Barbara

Climate Change, or the shift in regional climates due to an increased amount of carbon dioxide being sent into the Earth’s atmosphere, is an issue that polarizes many people. In recent years, the debate regarding the impact of man on global warming has shifted from a scientific one to a political one, a transition that is extremely harmful to solving this broad issue. The more time we spend focusing on partisanship on what action to take, the less time we have available before irreversible damage is done to our planet. In many people’s minds, the point of being too far gone may sound like an abstract problem that we won’t need to worry about soon. However, the experts are warning that these assumptions are dangerously false.

In a recent study published by The United Nations, General Assembly president María Espinosa stated that as a planet, we are only 11 years away from irreversible damage being done to our planet unless the international community, especially developing countries with high carbon dioxide outputs (such as India and China) take drastic change. “We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damage to our planet,” warned Espinosa in a recent assembly. If that statement makes you feel uneasy, then that’s good. You understand how dangerously close we are from the brink. It doesn’t take a scientist to see the already present adverse effects of rising sea temperature and levels on our everyday lives. Take hurricanes for example. During the summer and fall, it feels like there seems to be some sort of tropical storm battering our coasts everyday. With accelerated climate change, things are only going to get worse. According to C2ES, Category 4 & 5 hurricanes are projected to see up to 10% increases in wind speed, and experience 10-15% more precipitation than previous ones. Hurricane Harvey and Sandy serve as stark examples of the blistering effects of inaction regarding climate change.

The silver lining of this issue is that we are not too late. Our generation still has the power to prevent serious destruction to our planet. If you are interested in reading more about climate change, or contributing to non-partisan organizations that look into ways to mitigate the aforementioned issues, please click the links below:

Clean Air Task Force

ITIF

Climate Emergency Fund

The Sandbag Think Tank