November 8, 2016

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Monday november 8, 2016 vol. cxl no. 97

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

2016 Elections Special Issue Q&A

SURVEY

Faculty weigh ‘Prince’ survey finds 80.5 in on election percent preference for issues, debates Clinton among respondents

By Samuel Oh contributor

Allie Spensley contributor

Alice Vinogradsky contributor

In light of the many contentious issues surrounding civil liberties and social values raised during this election cycle, the Daily Princetonian spoke to various University faculty members with extensive scholarship pertaining to the topics of debate. For each faculty commentary, a thematic question is posed, followed by spe-

cific questions about candidate platforms. The commentaries below cover matters ranging from election rhetoric to immigration to definitions of marriage. The views presented here do not reflect the stances of ‘the Prince.’

What has been the impact of this election, both the race and the results, on matters of civil liberty, including immigration, speech, and rights of minority communities?

Stanley N. Katz is a profesSee FACULTY page 2

By Jessica Li

head news editor

With its near-hysterical, intimidating, and shocking moments, the presidential election of 2016 has become a focal point of global attention for the past few months. This election also marks the first time that many undergraduate students on the University’s campus gained the privilege to vote and participate actively in candidate’s campaigns. To survey how University students have engaged with the election, participated in campaigns, criti-

cally evaluated candidates, and ultimately cast their votes, the Daily Princetonian conducted an online poll open to all undergraduates from Thursday, Nov. 3 to Monday, Nov. 7. The survey garnered 701 responses, representing 13.3 percent of the entire undergraduate student body.

Out of the respondent pool, 80.5 percent of students have voted or will be voting for Democratic party nominee Hillary Clinton, while 9.4 percent indicated that they will be voting for Donald Trump, and 6.6 percent indicated that they will be voting for a third-party candidate.

Regarding political party affiliation, 61.8 percent of the respondents identified with the Democratic party, and 16.5 percent identified with the Republican party. Of survey respondents, 77.3 percent indicated that this election marks the first time they are voting, and 24.3 percent of respondents stated that they have actively campaigned for or expressed support for a presidential nominee through canvassing, fundraising, or joining a mailing list. Furthermore, 67.6 percent of University students who responded to the survey See POLL page 5

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

12 U. alumni seek position at House

By Abhiram Karrupur staff writer

This year, 12 University alumni are seeking election to the U.S. House of Representatives. Six alumni are running as incumbents.

Eight are running as Democrats and four are running as Republicans. The six incumbents include Reps. Ken Buck ’81, Leonard Lance GS ’82, Derek Kilmer ’96, Jared Polis ’96, John Sarbanes ’84, and Terri Sewell ’86.

Buck, a Republican, is running for his second term in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, which includes the state’s Eastern Plains and the city of Greeley. Buck was the former Weld County District Attorney and the Republican See HOUSE page 4

JESSICA ZHOU :: ASSOCIATE DESIGN EDITOR

U. Students volunteer for local, national campaigns

By Rose Gilbert contributor

Audrey Spensley contributor

Throughout the 2016 presidential election, many University students of every political creed have worked to further their ideals, whether alone, as a part of an on-campus organization, or on social media.

Like many conservative organisations and politicians, the Princeton College Republicans have taken a neutral stance on Republican nominee Donald Trump. According to the group’s president Paul Draper ‘18, the organization is focusing its campaign efforts on state and local Republican candidates instead.

Draper said that this neutral

stance does not indicate any significant shift in the College Republicans’ core values.

“There has not been a change in the motivations of the group,” Draper said. “We are just as dedicated to the Republican Party.”

However, Draper said that not endorsing Donald Trump has had drawbacks.

“The neutral stance has put a damper on our efforts to organize,”he said. “Usually, the nominee is the rallying point.”

Although the group has had fewer organized activities, individual members have still been active in campaigning. For example, Draper said, one member was in Florida supporting a Republican CongressSee STUDENT page 3

In Opinion In the election issue, columnist Jackie Thorbjornson evaluates the hypocrisy in responses to the FBI’s actions, guest contributor Laura Smith draws parallels between Trump and Andrew Jackson, and guest columnist Annie Yang reflects on her experiences in the rallies for both candidates. PAGE 6

Election Day: Where to go and what to do

By Katherine Wang contributor

With Election Day finally upon the United States, Americans across the nation are — and will be — lining up to cast their ballots throughout the day, or in the case of absentee voters, keeping their eyes peeled on the polls and heart rates up until the late hours of the night when results are finally announced.

The Computer Science Building Lobby and Carl Icahn Laboratory are two voting locations on campus, and they will be open from 6 a.m until 8 p.m. A Snapchat filter will be available for students and voters. Taking photos inside voting booths is prohibited.

Many University groups are

hosting a variety of events around campus for the Election Day as well.

The American Whig-Cliosophic Society will host an Election Night Extravaganza starting at 7 p.m. until election results are announced. The event is open to University students. There will be 270 bubble teas, representing the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, 1000 Dunkin’ Donuts, pizza, a photo booth, a raffle for a grand prize of Beats Headphones, and more. There will also be screenings on all four floors, with MSNBC showing in the basement, CNN on both the first and second floors, and Foxon the third.

Additionally, a Cannon Green photo booth will be open all day

Today on Campus 6 a.m.: Polling locations can be found at the Icahn Lab (District 7), Computer Science Building Lobby (District 8), and 372 Witherspoon Street (District 9). Polls are open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.

between Whig Hall and Clio Hall.

A photographer will be present to take photos of people with Nassau Hall in the background as well as balloons that spell “VOTED.” A Snapchat filter will also be available on the spot.

Frist Campus Center is also taking part in Election Day festivities, welcoming students with steps taped red, white, and blue, as well as balloons that spell “VOTE.” There will be donuts, pins, and a Snapchat filter on-site.

The results of the Whig-Clio sponsored Prediction Pool will be announced as soon as the results are known. A total of 193 students participated and gave predictions for which candidate they thought would win key battleground states and congressional races.

WEATHER

STUDENT LIFE

HIGH

67˚

LOW

45˚

Sunny. chance of rain:

10 percent

The Daily Princetonian

page 2

Monday november 8, 2016

George: I trust Trump no more than Cornel West trusts Clinton FACULTY Continued from page 1

.............

sor of Public and International Affairs and Director of the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies at the Woodrow Wilson School. On November 4th, 2016, he sat down with the Daily Princetonian to give a commentary on the position of the two candidates in Tuesday’s election, specifically their views on civil rights and liberties.

DP: What are both candidates’ abilities to uphold the civil liberties of American were they to be elected as president of the United States?

SNK: It’s really hard to answer. I have a pretty good idea of who Hillary Clinton is and where she would go on issues like this. He [Donald Trump] has no kind of track record, and frankly, I have all kinds of hunches but they are poorly informed based on what I’ve seen in the last six months or so on television. And I’d have to be very worried about it. He seems to be a person who is much more concerned with conformity and order than freedom of expression, except for himself. On the other hand, I’m a little worried about making a judgement; he’s never been called upon to make judgement on these kinds of things. It could be that he would not be as bad as I feared – though he seems to have no understanding of law, let’s start with that.

All his talk about throwing Hillary Clinton in jail and so forth is irresponsible and poorly informed. You have to fear the worst for someone like that.

On the other hand, he would be advised by people who are better informed and might not be as bad as one hopes. But he certainly hasn’t said anything that leads me to believe that he would have any particular concerns for civil liberties.

DP: Mr. Trump has said many questionable things about immigrants, Muslims, and many other minority groups. Do you think he would be able to follow up on any of his views and claims?

SNK: He has said many terrible things, and I disagree with almost everything that he has

ever said. That said, I suspect that were he to be elected, he can’t in fact act upon most of those things, and it is hard to believe that he would be able to appoint people to the Department of Justice or the Federal Bench who would support the extreme things that he has said.

Frankly I think there is reason to think that he would behave in a more reasonable way than he speaks. Even on many of the issues you mentioned. He has backtracked quite a lot. We never had someone like him [running] before. So I think it is very hard for anyone to judge what he would actually do. And frankly until the last few days I didn’t take seriously that he would be elected. Now – I still don’t think he would be elected – but now it doesn’t seem completely impossible.

DP: Trump has also mentioned that Hillary Clinton exploits minorities, saying “thank you, see you again in four years”.

Do you think Clinton will be able to effectively protect the civil liberties and rights of Americans, especially minorities?

SNK: It’s hard to say, but Clinton has a really long and good track record. Let’s start with the fact that she is a lawyer, and a really good lawyer at that. She was a brilliant law student. She had a legal career before. She had to support her husband’s career, she worked for the Children’s Defense Fund, she’s actually got a track record for looking in and for civil liberties and I don’t have any doubt that she believes that and I don’t doubt that those are kinds of positions that she would support as far as I can tell. Historically Democrats have supported those kinds of views and she strikes me as the traditional Democrat. For instance, I expect her to appoint mainstream slightly left of center people to the supreme court, whereas he [Donald Trump] would appoint people more like Justice Scalia.

DP: How do you think Hillary Clinton will distinguish herself from the Obama Administration on this issue?

SNK: On most issues I would expect her to be pretty much in the same place the Obama administration has been on most issues. Obama has been what I would describe as down the

center for a Democrat. He’s been steady in his support for civil rights and liberties and expect Hillary Clinton to do the same.

With Trump I would expect a fairly traditional, Republican views on civil liberties.

DP: So you would say that Trump would further backtrack on the extreme remarks he made during his campaign were he to be elected president?

SNK: Yes. It does depend on the people he appoints and I don’t think they’re going to be incompetent people who believe that we shouldn’t take minority groups seriously. That’s a nonstarter as a policy. I think he is completely incompetent to be the president of the United States. But if the worst was to come to pass, my guess is that, given the dynamics of institutions, he would be forced to be more reasonable than his extreme and horrible language.

Though that may be because of my mentality that the glass is half full. I see Clinton as a middle of the road person. As a Democrat she is to the right of me. I wish she would go further but her position is still fine with me. I think Obama was a centrist on most issues and Clinton will do the same.

In what ways has this election been influenced by changing trends in social and family values?

Robert George, an American legal scholar and political philosopher serves as the University’s McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, as well as the Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. On November 7th, 2016 he offered a commentary on how the two major candidates are addressing issues related to family values.

DP: Briefly explain your perspective of prominent candidate stances on social and civil issues, including those that involve definitions of marriage and right to choice/life. Which major party candidate’s platform do you feel is better for the nation?

RG: On marriage I stand where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—time and again—claimed firmly to stand

U. computer science professor Appel questions voting security

By Alexander Stangl contributor

Andrew Appel, Eugene Higgins Professor of Computer Science, recently testified before Congress regarding security at the polls. In his testimony, Appel noted key areas of concern — voting machines and voting procedure, in particular — that could impact the validity of the election results.

Appel could not be reached for comment.

In his testimony, Appel noted with regards to voting machines that it is expected that each person’s vote be tallied by a voting machine, and that once the polls close, the net results at each voting center be collected and transmitted up the chain. This current system leaves plenty of room for interference by a third party actor, who could either disrupt the tallying of votes, or discretely shift votes from one candidate to another, potentially shifting the tide of an election, he said.

Appel said that he and many others have demonstrated in the past that voting machines are vulnerable to hacking.

While he did not go into the

details on how to hack a voting machine, he noted that doing so is as simple as installing new software on the voting machines, and can take as little as seven minutes.

Referencing a hacking attack that targeted hotel chains such as Hyatt several years ago, Appel noted that in theory, swinging the tide of a presidential election could be as easy as committing the petty theft that occurred at Hyatt.

The attack on Hyatt bypassed the key card security systems by taking advantage of the facts that the systems stored passcodes in plaintext and that a developer port was left open on the underside of the lock. Anyone with $20 worth of equipment and five minutes of time could make a skeleton key to open any door in any Hyatt hotel using this technology, Appel explained.

Additionally, Appel noted, voting machines are often transported to voting centers days in advance. These locations can include schools, firehouses, churches, and other places not under 24-hour surveillance, where “anyone could gain access to a voting machine for 10 minutes,” Appel said.

For this reason, Appel recommended eliminating touch screen voting systems and using optical-scan paper ballots instead. Under this system, in the event that the validity of the polls is called into question, a physical copy of each vote would have already been collected, allowing for recounts. Appel also recommended a mandatory sampling of said paper votes postelection. Doing so, he said, would not be time consuming, but would be very efficient in auditing for suspicious behavior, which could stem either from direct interference or from bugs in the voting machines.

With regard to voting procedures, Appel warned that in recent years, the system has become overly reliant on technology. In particular, he noted, if information regarding registered voters were stored only online, then an entire voting center could be subject to a denial of service attack, potentially delaying an election.

Thus, he recommended that poll workers always have some physical recourse on which they can rely in the event of such technical interference.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Daily Princetonian is published daily except Saturday and Sunday from September through May and three times a week during January and May by The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., 48 University Place, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Mailing address: P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542. Subscription rates: Mailed in the United States $175.00 per year, $90.00 per semester. Office hours: Sunday through Friday, 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Telephones: Business: 609-375-8553; News and Editorial: 609-258-3632. For tips, email news@ dailyprincetonian.com. Reproduction of any material in this newspaper without expressed permission of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2014, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

until flip flopping for transparently political reasons. On abortion, I stand against the position Donald Trump claimed firmly to hold until flip flopping for equally transparently political reasons. As someone who believes in the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions and in marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, I find neither former Secretary Clinton nor Mr. Trump satisfactory. Clinton has never, to my knowledge, been able to think of a circumstance in which she believes that the right to life of a child in the womb should meaningfully be protected.

Trump now claims he supports substantial legal protection for unborn babies, but who can believe him? Infidelity—and not just to his wives—has been the one constant in his life. I trust Donald Trump no more than my friend Cornel West trusts Hillary Clinton. I share Professor West’s belief that neither party has given us a candidate who meets the threshold to be acceptable as the leader of our nation. In the short run, her election might well do greater damage to causes I believe in. In the long run, his election might do greater damage. I cannot in good conscience support either of them.

DP: What specific issues, within the context of family and social values, are of greatest concern to you and to this election? What issues do you believe still need to be addressed that are not currently being discussed and why?

RG: Like people on both sides of the social issues debates, the selection of judges and the future of the Supreme Court are critically important issues for me. I have no doubt that Clinton will be faithful to her supporters in appointing judges and justices who will continue and expand the practice of imposing liberal ideology on the nation under the pretext of giving effect to constitutional guarantees. Trump claims that he will appoint true constitutionalists who will be guided by the text, logic, structure, and original understanding of the Constitution and will not usurp the authority of the people and their elected representatives. He has provided impressive lists of judges he would consider appointing. If he were a person of good character—someone who could be trusted—this would count in his favor with me. But he is not.

DP: How do you believe recent developments related to family and social values have influenced the way the issues are being addressed in this year’s election?

RG: Both candidates are using social issues—especially the future of the Supreme Court—to rally their bases. This is normal and to be expected. The Supreme Court’s decision in the marriage case and, especially, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia have heightened the sense people on both sides have of what may be at stake in the election. The net result will be to further polarize an already polarized country.

Where do issues of reproductive health stand in this election?

James Trussell is the Charles and Marie Robertson Professor of Public and International Affairs, Emeritus and Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Emeritus in the Woodrow Wilson School. Bradford Wilson is the executive Director of the James Madison Program in the Department of Politics.

On November 7th, 2016, both corresponded with the Daily Princetonian to discuss the role female reproductive issues have played in this presidential election cycle.

DP: Please briefly explain your perspective of prominent candidate stances on female reproductive health.

JT: Clinton is firmly prochoice. She supports repealing the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion for poor women.

Trump has vowed to repeal abortion rights by putting antichoice justices on the Supreme Court.

BW: Just a clarification: Trump has vowed to appoint Justices who, if given the opportunity, would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade. That would return the abortion controversy to each of the 50 states, who each would determine the scope and limits of the abortion freedom in its jurisdiction. Secretary Clinton has declared in favor of an unlimited right to abort, presumably up until the day before birth.

JT: What nonsense about aborting until the day before birth. If that ever happened, and it does not, it would be only to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.

BW: Well, that was rude.

That is Hillary’s position, like it or not. She’s been clear about it.

Trump is opposed to late term abortions. He is clear about it, too. We’re talking about candidates’ positions, not our own policy preferences.

JT: Yes, I erroneously assumed you could think. There are many Trump positions. Like wanting to punish women who have abortions.

T HE DA ILY

The best place to Write Edit Opine Design Produce Illustrate Photograph Create

on campus. join@dailyprincetonian.com

The Daily Princetonian

Monday november 8, 2016

page 3

Students note prevalence of electronic PEC creator Wang talks Senate elections engagement with politics on campus

By Emily Spalding contributor

Sam Wang, professor of molecular biology and creator of the Princeton Election Consortium, believes that the most interesting results to watch for on Election Day are not those of the presidential race, but rather those of the U.S. Senate.

“I can’t emphasize enough … this is a really unusual time in U.S. politics and I think the stability of the federal government may in fact depend on who controls the Senate,” Wang explained.

The PEC is one of the leading poll aggregation websites in the country, featuring statistical analyses of an array of political races in addition to a variety of political commentary. Using data from state polls, the PEC includes detailed predictions of such races.

As of Nov. 7, the PEC’s Senate snapshot predicts an even Democratic+Independent/Republican split in the Senate.

“The Senate will end up probably, but not definitely, being controlled by the Democrats.

There’s a very good chance it will be a 50/50 Senate … I would say the odds right now are fourto-one in favor, but that’s not definite by any means,” Wang added.

He explained that the Senate’s control is going to be determined by “six or seven very close Senate races” in Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.

“This year, really, all the suspense is in the Senate,” he added.

Fares Marayati ’19, a resident of North Carolina, attributed his state’s swing state status this year to “an expansion in urban centers and cities” and “an influx of young employees, young college graduates that are coming to work [in the state],” who tend to be more liberal. However, he predicts the Senate seat will go to incumbent Republican Richard Burr because “he is admired collectively in the state.”

Another poll aggregation source, FiveThirtyEight, has its polls-only forecast predicting a 48.4 percent chance of Democrats gaining control of the Senate, with a 51.6 percent chance for the Republicans. Additionally, Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball predictions have the Senate at a 50/50 tie.

Wang stressed the importance of the ultimate Senate outcomes, noting that the results “will determine … what kind of Senate the president would face in the new year.”

He noted that the makeup of the Senate is especially of interest this election in terms of the future of the government’s efficacy.

“Given polarization that has been happening over the past years, it is likely that a Republican Senate would be willing to

block cabinet appointments and Supreme Court appointments and other traditional appointments, so the Senate control is really critical for the stability of the Federal Government,” he explained.

While Wang does not predict a presidential recount, he foresees four possible Senate recounts. He added that he would be “particularly attentive” to possible recounts in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Missouri, and Indiana.

“If anybody is going to lawyer-up, they should lawyer-up for the Senate races in those four states,” he added.

As for the presidential race, Wang noted that while the contest is “a very emotional” and “very polarized race,” the climate for making the calculations has been “calm.” He attributed this to the movement of the polls, explaining that “as polarization has gotten more and more intense, polls have moved less and less. And so, in fact, the Clinton-Trump margin … has moved up and down this year less than any presidential campaign on record.”

Based on 224 state polls, the PEC predicts a Clinton victory.

According to Wang, there are “no swing states, per se” in the presidential race. However, there is some suspense as to what will happen in some states.

“If you look at the record, voting usually comes in pretty close to state polls, but there can be a discrepancy of one to two percentage points in either direction,” Wang said. “Right now, Hillary Clinton is underperforming where she’s been for the last several months, and so statistically, to me that [shows] that she will do a little bit better than her polls when votes are counted tomorrow.”

PEC gives Hillary Clinton, Democratic nominee and favorite to win the presidency, a 99 percent chance of winning over Republican nominee Donald Trump. Other polling aggregates predict a Clinton win. The New York Times asserts Clinton has an 84 percent chance of winning, FiveThirtyEight a 70 percent chance, and Sabato estimates that the race will lean blue.

He said that early voting has begun to confirm this notion.

“Early voting seems to be going about the same as … in 2012, and that suggests that the overall result will be similar to Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012. So, early voting… is some indication of what will happen,” he said.

With regards to the potential impacts of the recent letter from Director of the FBI James Comey on voter behavior, Wang said that the net effect of the Comey letter was to “suck oxygen out of the room for anything like Senate races and discussion of issues.” He added that the net effect of the letter can only be ascertained on Election Day.

Did you know... that the ‘Prince’ has a Facebook page?

Like our page!

Procrastinate productively!

STUDENT Continued from page 1

.............

man.

According to Amanda Glatt, president of Princeton College Democrats, student involvement this year has been significantly greater than in previous years. “Whereas the group last year was mostly composed of sophomores, this year it is mostly comprised of freshmen,” Glatt wrote in an email.

She attributed the change to the election.

“Donald Trump has driven moderates to our group, particularly for campaign work as opposed to the social aspects of our group,” Glatt wrote. “Republicans have not been involved with our group, even though I know many of them are voting for Hillary.”

The College Democrats have travelled to Pennsylvania for door-todoor canvassing.

“12 students went on a trip to Florida over fall break to campaign in Orlando’s 7th district for Hillary as well as the local congressional candidate,” Glatt said through email.

Max Parsons ’20 was one of the students on the trip. “A group of people called the Princeton Progressives provides funds for young Democrats to go around the country to do political activism,” he said. “We were sent to target lower-income groups that are often subject to political attempts to stifle their vote.”

The Princeton Progressives are an alumni group that supports progressive groups on and off campus, holds progressive events, and seeks to build a network of progressives.

According to Parsons, the students went door-to-door canvassing potential Democratic voters. They helped low-income voters develop a plan to vote on Election Day. “The [Democratic National Committee] has radically shifted their grassroots campaigning, and that’s why they’re so effective,” Riley Owen ’20, who was not affiliated with the trip, said.

“Canvassing doesn’t change people’s minds,” Owen said. “It’s giving them the information and the resources they need to get out and

vote.”

However, Owen said he didn’t believe grassroots efforts would have as large of an effect on the election this year as it has in years prior.

“The Trump movement has a very localized culture about it, but it seems to lack the comprehensive grassroots organization that the [Democratic National Committee] has effectively mobilized, which is what the Republicans have lacked and still lack,” he explained.

According to Parsons, besides canvassing, the group spent a day volunteering at a Hillary Clinton rally. The rally was attended by Democratic senate candidate Patrick Murphy and civil rights activist Congressman John Lewis.

“The nature of the campaign right now is that [Clinton] doesn’t need to be that political. Think about Obama, Romney. They were debating the details of tax plans, the details of health care reforms.” Parsons said, stating that this year’s election is far less specific in terms of policy due to the extreme ideological differences between the candidates.

“I went into the trip thinking, if you support someone, you vote for them, and that’s that,” Parsons said.

“But when you go and you help other people to vote, that’s what gives an individual a greater impact.”

Students who are not active members of on-campus political organizations have also noticed their efforts. David Landeta ’19 cited examples of student involvement in the 2016 election, including the Campus Democrats’ trip to Florida to campaign for Secretary Clinton and mass emails from student groups and individual supporters of both major candidates.

Landeta also noted the increased role of social media in the 2016 presidential election, which has allowed students to receive constant and near-immediate updates on both campaigns and to get involved by championing their opinions to an international audience. In particular, he said he’s noticed an increase in political news posted to websites like Facebook, as well as a greater online presence from the candidates themselves.

“In 2012, even though social me-

dia was still on the rise, you didn’t see candidates tweet at each other or tweet at their political opponents,” Landeta said. “Social media is playing a big role.”

Seth Lovelace ’20 said he remains unaffiliated with any campus political organization because of time constraints.

“I have a lot of obligations,” he said. “I feel like that would take up a lot of time outside of what I’d like to do.” He added that he and other unaffiliated students nevertheless remain involved in the election in other ways.

“I feel like, in general, different types of campaigning efforts are effective. For example, when I went back to my high school in New Orleans, I saw that they were actually holding phone campaigns to call voters in Florida to vote for Hillary, specifically. I feel like actions like that are very effective in the sense that you’re trying to reach as many voters as you can and trying to really inform them to vote certain ways.”

“Most of the people I know are not involved with organizations like that but we like to talk politically or engage in some other way,” Lovelace said.

Ben Parker ’20, who is also not affiliated with a particular political group on campus, voiced similar concerns about the time commitment of joining an on-campus political organization, but said that he stayed involved in other ways.

“I have other obligations and it would take up a lot of my time,” Parker said. “I go to FiveThirtyEight every day pretty much, and I read The New York Times, and also go to Reddit and look at both the pro-Donald Trump subreddit and ‘Politics,’ which is generally pretty liberal.”

He added that this accessibility often comes at the cost of reliable fact checking.

“I think the internet allows you to stay involved, but I think it also comes with more bias than other sources of information. I think that the internet allows people to produce things a lot more quickly, but that comes with less accuracy. People can just kind of say things and they don’t really need to have facts behind them.”

The Daily Princetonian

page 4

Monday november 8, 2016

Alumni candidates include eight Democrats, four Republicans HOUSE

Continued from page 1

.............

nominee for U.S. Senate in 2010. He is being challenged

by Democrat Bob Seay.

Lance, a Republican, is running for his fifth term in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, which includes Central and Western New Jersey, and includes Bridgewater Township and the city of Flemington. Lance previously served in the New Jersey State Senate and General Assembly and is being challenged by Democrat Peter Jacob.

Kilmer, a Democrat, is running for his third term in Washington’s 6th Congressional District, which includes the Olympic Peninsula and the city of Gig Harbor. Kilmer previously served in the Washington House of Representatives and the State Senate and is being challenged by Republican Todd Bloom.

Polis, a Democrat, is running for his second term in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes the cities of Boulder and Vail. Polis co-founded Amer-

ican Information Systems and ProFlowers, and runs an education foundation called the Jared Polis Foundation.

He also served on the Colorado Board of Education and is being challenged by Republican Nicholas Morse.

Sarbanes, a Democrat, is running for his sixth term in Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District, which includes the city of Annapolis and the Baltimore suburbs.

Sarbanes was previously a lawyer at Venable LLP and sponsored the No Child Left Inside Act in Congress. He is being challenged by Republican Mark Plaster.

Sewell, a Democrat, is running for her fourth term in Alabama’s 7th Congressional District, which includes the city of Selma and part of the city of Birmingham.

Sewell previously served as a public-finance lawyer in Birmingham, and was the cochair of the Women’s Fund “Voices Against Violence” campaign. She is running unopposed.

Sewell, Sarbanes, Polis, and Kilmer are running as incumbent Democrats, and Lance and Buck are running as incumbent Republicans.

The six alumni who are running for their first term in Congress include Raja Krishnamoorthi ’96, Mike Gallagher ’06, Tom Nelson GS ’04, D. Peter Theron ’78, Brady Walkinshaw ’06, and Paul Clements GS ’92 GS ’96.

Gallagher, a Republican, and Nelson, a Democrat, are running against each other for an open seat in Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District, which includes the cities of Green Bay and Appleton.

Gallagher served seven years as a Captain in the U.S. Marine Corps and was deployed twice to Iraq as a commander of intelligence teams. He is currently a Senior Global Market Strategist at Breakthrough Fuel, an energy and supply chain management company.

Nelson is the Outagamie County Executive and is a former member of the Wisconsin State Assembly. In 2010, Nelson ran for the position of Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin.

Theron, a Republican, is running against incumbent Democrat Rep. Mark Pocan in Wisconsin’s 2nd Congressional District, which in-

cludes the city of Madison.

Theron is a mathematician and instructor at Madison College, and ran for Congress in both 2008 and 2014 in the same district.

In a statement, Theron said that if elected, his first priority would be to unleash the economy by cutting spending and reducing regulation. He also noted that he would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with a market-oriented plan, strengthen the military to defeat ISIS, and secure the border.

“We have had a Democrat in Congress here since 1998,” Theron said. “It’s time for a change.”

Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat, is running for an open seat in Illinois’s 8th Congressional District, which includes the Chicago suburbs of Schaumburg and Palatine. Krishnamoorthi is the President of Sivananthan Labs and Episolar, Inc., two businesses that develop products for national security and renewable energy purposes. He previously served as the Illinois Deputy Treasurer and was ViceChairman of the Illinois

Innovation Council. He is running against Republican Peter DiCianni.

Walkinshaw, a Democrat, is running for an open seat in Washington’s 7th Congressional District, which includes the city of Seattle and the northern suburbs.

Walkinshaw currently serves in the Washington State House of Representatives and previously worked as a program manager for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He is running against another Democrat, Pramila Jayapal, due to the district’s jungle primary.

Walkinshaw said that he is running on a platform that emphasizes sustainability and the environment. He noted that he wants to form a partnership between Seattle and the federal government in order to implement Seattle’s successful policies on a national level, and has emphasized this local focus throughout the campaign.

“The partnership would explore what it looks like to grow an urban center in America in an equitable, just, and environmentally sustainable way, and what that looks like for federal policy,” Walkinshaw said.

He added that he has also worked across party lines to implement criminal justice and mental health reforms, and will be able to bring this approach to Congress if elected.

Clements, a Democrat, is running against incumbent Republican Rep. Fred Upton in Michigan’s 6th Congressional District, which includes the city of Kalamazoo. Clements is currently a professor of political science at Western Michigan University, and previously served in the Peace Corps. Clements ran for the same seat in 2014.

T HE DA ILY

Enjoy drawing pretty pictures?

Like to work with Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator or InDesign?

Join the ‘Prince’ design team! join@dailyprincetonian.com

The Daily Princetonian

Monday november 8, 2016

page 5

67.5 percent of students voted in home state, according to poll POLL

Continued from page 1

.............

indicated that they are voting in their home state and will be casting an absentee ballot or voting early. Finally, over half (58.2 percent) of respondents indicated that they had already cast their ballots.

The ‘Prince’ also conducted more in-depth analysis of polling data by analyzing correlations between student’s socioeconomic status and their candidate preference. Additionally, we analyzed respondents’ motives behind their candidate preferences. Finally, we examined candidate preferences among students hailing from swing states.

PHOTOS!

JESSICA ZHOU :: ASSOCIATE DESIGN EDITOR

Presidential candidate preferences for major swing states.

Visit our website to view photos and purchase copies!

T HE DA ILY

Someone take your ‘Prince’? Get your fix online.

www.dailyprincetonian.com

photo.dailyprincetonian.com

here at the end Nathan pHAN ’19

..................................................

Tweet Tweet!!

Follow us on Twitter! @Princetonian

Opinion

Monday november 8, 2016

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

The real double standard

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

A tale of two rallies Annie Yang

Jacqueline Thorbjornson

I

Jacquelyn Thorbjornson is a sophomore from South Thomaston, Maine. She can be reached at jot@princeton.edu.

Do-Hyeong Myeong ’17

columnist

columnist

n light of the recent controversy surrounding the decision of Director of the FBI James B. Comey to write to Congress revealing that the FBI has reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s personal email scandal, I think it is crucial to remember that, not long ago, Comey was revered by Democrats and criticized by Republicans – exactly the opposite of the current climate.

Although Comey recently announced that the FBI has not changed its July recommendation that Clinton not be prosecuted for any criminal charges, examining the response to Comey’s announcement reveals a concerning underlying hypocrisy.

After the FBI’s July announcement that the investigation into the Clinton email scandal did not provide grounds to recommend prosecution, Comey was well within Democratic favor. Four months later, members of the same party have called on him to resign. Tennessee Congressmen Steve Cohen, for instance, tweeted a two page explanation for why he believes Comey ought to resign.

Cohen’s statement is in line with the majority of hypocritical criticisms of Comey. In his own statement, Cohen demonstrates unmistakable political bias in his condemnation of Comey’s actions.

He writes that, “In the past, even quite recently, I have expressed my appreciation for Director Comey…,”going on to cite two examples in which Comey made decisions that were aligned with Cohen’s own political ends (one of which was the July announcement about the email investigation). But as soon as Comey’s actions no longer supported Cohen’s politics, Cohen’s opinion changed. His criticism of Comey comes from a place of political bias, not an objective consideration of the responsibilities of the FBI. Yet Cohen is not the only one politicizing Comey – whose letter to Congress is notably an objective notification of information possession. The media itself is aiding and abetting the politicization of what is a non-partisan entity. In July, immediately after Comey’s recommendation against charging Clinton, The Washington Post published an article entitled “Republicans attack Mr. Comey for doing his job.” Now, more common titles are those echoing the message of a more recent Washington Post article titled “James Comey is damaging our democracy.”

Accusations that Comey made a political decision by informing Congress of an ongoing FBI investigation are flatly wrong.

Informing Congress was the only nonpartisan decision to be made. Withholding this information would be to deliberately mislead Congress and the American people regarding the status of the Clinton email investigation. Withholding this information, therefore, would be a political decision. Hillary Clinton herself stated that “The American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately.”

This hardly sounds like a plea for Comey to withhold information.

Despite the relativism the Democratic party has displayed in their portrayal of Comey, there are certain questions remaining. Some have expressed concern about the fact that Comey made such headlines only 11 days before the election.

Yet it is important to reference his letter in which he states that his team had briefed him only the day prior. He was relaying information in real time as he received it and cannot be blamed for the disruptive timing. Others take issue with the idea of the FBI releasing information about ongoing investigations. In response to this, I remind the reader that the public was already well aware of the initial investigation into Clinton’s emails.

Lastly, some, including Clinton, refer to Comey’s announcement as a “jaw-dropping double standard” since he refused comment on the Trump-Russia investigation. However, by praising Comey one month and condemning him the next based on our politically shaped perceptions of his decisions, are we not similarly engaging in a double standard? We are politicizing Comey and the FBI – they are not politicizing themselves.

Ultimately, it is the duty of the public to demand more information, more transparency, and more non-partisanship, and we should vehemently object to manipulation of the public view of the FBI to push a political agenda.

vol. cxl

Daniel Kim ’17

I

joke that Princeton gave us fall break so we could come home and fulfill our civic duties, but the stakes have never been higher in sunny Michigan, a traditionally Democratic-leaning state. Just last week, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton visited for campaign rallies, and I attended both.

As an Asian-American, I didn’t fully understand the appeal of a presidential candidate who had alienated women, minorities, and immigrants, so I decided to find a supporter’s perspective.

It was a blustery, overcast Halloween day when my sister Jennie and I drove over to Macomb Community College in Warren. We stood in line alongside Trump supporters, most of whom were wearing Trump merchandise, and we engaged in amiable chats with them, discussing each of the presidential candidates and what qualities and offenses they carried.

Several supporters admitted that they didn’t agree with everything that Trump said, and noted even if they had been Hillary supporters, they would find areas of disagreement as well. They weren’t just Trump supporters: they were veterans, a disillusioned couple, and dedicated Republicans who had put thought into their choice, and found someone they believed in.

We shuffled in and noticed that the supporters were older and not incredibly diverse — I could only pick out a handful of people who looked like me. At the same time, it wasn’t like we were being ostracized. The woman standing next to us told us she was a registered nurse and took care of elderly patients when she wasn’t taking care of her own grandchildren, and the men in front of us were construction workers who’d managed to take some time off so they could attend. They were all pleasant and hardly seemed like the stereotypical, vitriolic Trump supporters we’d heard about in some news stories.

The speakers — a reverend, a politician, one of Trump’s employees, and Indiana University basketball coach Bob Knight — had provoked cheers, but this gave way to a noticeable slump, as Trump was running late. In this interim, one man fainted, and the woman standing next to me ran in to help the man up. The man, hardly the typical middleaged white male Trump supporter, emerged to a rousing applause and big smiles all around.

When Trump finally arrived, the crowd was ecstatic. It was as if his entrance had whipped up a frenzy, something he contributed to as he jumped from one point to another, as if engaging in an unscripted conversation with his supporters.

“Is that a protester? Get ‘em outta here,” he said to cheers and fervent sign-waving. He openly mocked the press, encouraging the crowd to turn around and boo the cameras, and they obliged; those around me were incredibly vocal in their disapproval, jeering at the cameras.

“USA,” “Trump,” “Build the Wall,” “Drain the Swamp,” “Lock her up,” “Hillary for Prison,” “Crooked Hillary,” were common refrains alongside classic rock beats. One man told me that the songs were Trump’s favorites and joked that these were the tunes Trump played in his car, just as the average American would on his or her way to work in the morning.

I recognized the Rolling Stones and Backstreet Boys among an eclectic smattering of bands and singers that, oddly enough, included the opera aria Nessun Dorma. These were familiar tunes to supporters who had grown up listening to

N

editor-in-chief

these singers on a lazy day, maybe even singing along on the radio. It was like attending a concert of classic oldies, with Trump as the main act.

It occurred to me that his supporters looked up to ‘The Donald’ himself. Trump is a pop culture icon entrenched in American memory, made larger through his hotels, casinos, and catchphrase, “you’re fired,” from ‘The Apprentice’. You can find Trump even if you’re not looking, on clothing and the winery not far from where I worked this summer. As a child, I admittedly looked up to Trump as the epitome of business savvy. To some degree, it’s difficult to separate this long-ingrained image of a successful businessman from evidence suggesting otherwise.

That Friday, Nov. 4, Hillary held her ground with a rally that garnered a crowd of several thousand at Shed 3 of the Eastern Market in the heart of Detroit.

Volunteers moved up and down the line under a sunny sky, and the atmosphere was optimistic. The woman in front of us had dressed up as Hillary and encouraged everyone to take pictures with her. Another group of women offered us sandwiches and promised to hold our place in line several times.

Hillary’s rally was composed of younger and more diverse supporters compared to the Trump rally; the pop music seemed to reflect this difference, with Katy Perry and Demi Lovato playing. Unlike Trump’s assemblage of speakers with whom I was unfamiliar, this rally featured notable Michigan state politicians, representatives from the United Automobile Workers, and Rev. Jesse Jackson. As we waited for Hillary to take the stage, an aide assured us that she would arrive soon, and sure enough, she arrived to fanfare and cheers from the crowd.

The individuals at the rally worked together just as those at Trump’s rally did — a woman fainted and was helped up quickly — but the key difference was that the crowd was less animated by a mutual hatred of the opponent. Sure, there were a few cries of “Dump Trump!” during the rally, but those were rare. Hillary focused on a message of progress through unity; while she did allude to Trump, she didn’t seem to extend as personal an attack as he had done just days earlier.

The people I met at both rallies could have been my neighbors, teachers, and friends. They were all eager to talk about their candidate. Several Trump supporters told us to move forward so that we might see better and a Hillary supporter gave us her only sign. When people fainted, everyone jumped into action. There was kindness on both sides of the fence.

I had been led to believe that all Trump supporters are irrational and hostile, but this was not the case. Although this revelation allowed me to better understand Trump’s supporters, I could not bring myself to overlook his messages of fear and discrimination reminiscent of that from which we have sought to move forward.

As my sister and I walked back out into the wind that day, we passed several tables of t-shirts, buttons, and other Trump memorabilia. The bright red “Make America Great Again” hats, as ubiquitous as the Trump brand, were perched on blank white mannequin heads against a grey sky.

“No thank you,” we said, and walked on by.

Annie Yang ’18 is an Ecology and Evolutionary Biology major from Troy, M.I. She can be reached at alyang@princeton.edu.

business manager

140TH MANAGING BOARD managing editor Caroline Congdon ’17 news editors Jessica Li ’18 Shriya Sekhsaria ’18 opinion editor Jason Choe ’17 sports editor David Liu ’18 street editors Andie Ayala ‘19 Catherine Wang ‘19 photography editor Rachel Spady ’18 video editor Elaine Romano ’19 web editor Clement Lee ’17 chief copy editors Omkar Shende ’18 Maya Wesby ’18 design editor Crystal Wang ’18 associate news editors Charles Min ’17 Marcia Brown ‘19 Claire Lee ‘19 associate opinion editors Newby Parton ’18 Sarah Sakha ’18 associate sports editors Nolan Liu ’19 David Xin ’19 associate photography editors Ahmed Akhtar ’17 Atakan Baltaci ’19 Mariachiara Ficarelli ’19 associate chief copy editors Megan Laubach ’18 Samuel Garfinkle ‘19 associate design editor Jessica Zhou ’19 editorial board chair Cydney Kim ’17 cartoons editor Rita Fang ’17 Blog editor Michael Zhang ’17

NIGHT STAFF 11.7 .16 staff copy editors Arthur Mateos ‘19 Morgan Bell ‘19 contributing copy editors Alice Xue ‘20 Stuti Mishra ‘20 Savannah McIntosh ‘20 Alia Wood ‘20 Sarah Deneher ‘20 Sharon Xiang ‘20 design Rachel Brill ‘19

At least as reliable as Andrew Jackson

ewt Gingrich, when asked last month whether Donald Trump is mentally suited for the presidency, replied “sure” and followed up by likening Trump to Andrew Jackson. While Gingrich likely intended to praise Trump, his apt comparison should cause voters to be concerned.

For the 2016 election, it is imperative to remember Jackson, the president associated with the birth of populist campaigning. Until relatively recently, he has been heralded as the champion of the “common man.” But that legacy is now controversial.

His presidency is becoming increasingly recognized by historians as having done more harm to the nation than good. Voters should be cognizant of the similarities between Jackson and Trump before making their fateful decision at the ballot box.

Perhaps we can understand the potential danger of a Trump presidency through considering the uncanny parallels between Jackson and Trump — for example, their explosive temperaments and determination to fight to preserve personal honor in the pursuit of power. Jackson started a war, with populist rhetoric as ammunition, against the Bank of the United States in order to defeat his nemesis Henry Clay in the re-election campaign of 1832. His long-standing personal grudge against Clay dictated his policies to the economic detriment of the American people. Politics was intensely personal for Jackson.

But his similarities to the current Republican nominee begin earlier. Following his defeat after the House of Representa-

Laura Smith

guest contributor

tives decided the 1824 election, Jackson clamored against a supposed “corrupt bargain” that had elected John Quincy Adams and made Henry Clay the Secretary of State. Trump, meanwhile, has already called the 2016 election “rigged,” following Jackson’s example of fueling conspiracy theories to gain political clout.

Historians David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler argue that Jackson, following his election in 1828 and re-election in 1832, created the foundations for the imperial presidency. He scoffed at the Supreme Court for its inability to stop him from enacting his Native American removal policy, he fired cabinet members who dared question the legality of his policies, and he established the spoils system for appointing government officials.

The parallels to Trump should already be clear. Jackson sought to battle the Washington establishment and change the nation, just like Trump. To these men, legality of policies is inconvenient at best and irrelevant at worst. Trump’s campaign promise to deport undocumented immigrants could become the Trail of Tears of the 21st century. While the target of their enmity differs, Jackson and Trump demonstrate the dangers of racial profiling, which has remained rampant throughout American history to the present.

Furthermore, Jackson’s legacy allowed for the election of his protégée James K. Polk, who declared war against Mexico

in 1846. Trump’s campaign rhetoric on border security likewise paves the way for a tense relationship between the U.S. and Mexico under a Trump presidency.

It is imperative that, prior to the denouement of this year’s presidential campaign, we remember the vital lessons of America’s unique history. Both Trump and Jackson are examples of candidates who mastered the populist narrative. Jackson, the supposed champion of the “common man,” was actually a wealthy plantation owner. How could he — or Trump — honestly claim to understand anyone outside of the elite minority? Populist appeals are powerful, but the goodness of their intentions are entirely dependent upon the candidate who espouses them.

Similarities between the rhetoric and temperaments of Jackson and Trump are unmistakable. Jackson’s presidency is a lesson in the dangers of electing demagogic, power-hungry personalities to the most powerful office in the world. Gingrich’s response to the question of whether the Republican party candidate is mentally suited for the presidency is extremely illuminating. By making an explicit reference to Jackson, even Republican supporters of Trump are unable to avoid the truth evident in the comparison. It is vital that voters remember these historical truths, for those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Guest contributor Laura Smith is a doctoral student in History at the University of Mississippi.

She can be reached at lesmith3@go.olemiss.edu.

Monday november 8, 2016

The Daily Princetonian

U. students rally for campaigns

page 7

Sports

Monday november 8, 2016

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } W. S O CC E R

Lussi reflects on legacy as women’s soccer ends season with tie against Penn

By Miranda Hasty staff writer

The women’s soccer team wrapped up the 2016 fall season with a 1-1 draw against UPenn this past Saturday, November 5, at Roberts Stadium.

Princeton was in the lead just seven minutes after the first whistle when senior defender Haley Chow slid and knocked in a corner kick from senior defender and midfielder Jesse McDonough. Eighteen minutes after Chow’s first goal of the season, UPenn tied the game with a shot from Emily Sands taken from the top corner of the 18-yard box.

The Tigers finished at 10-4-3 overall and 2-3-2 for the Iv y League.

Senior forward Tyler Lussi explained her team’s attitude as they headed into their final Ivy League match: “As every student athlete at Princeton knows, your next Iv y game is the toughest...Sean [Driscoll], Kelly [Boudreau], Mike [Poller] and Alison [Nabatoff] and everyone on this team has prepared us to play at the highest level. Our attitude at game time is either our biggest asset or biggest obstacle. We have to be all in — no excuses, just execute.”

Lussi also ref lected on the leadership that she, McDonough, junior midfielder Vanessa Gregoire, and senior midfielder Nicole Loncar displayed throughout the highs and lows of this fall season.

“The team and the coaches selected four captains with four distinct personalities so there was always a full menu of leadership, perspectives, and intensity,” Lussi explained. “Being a member of a team and tying or losing is tough, being a captain and leading your teammates to that tie or loss is brutal. Coaches do all they can with guidance and strategy from the sidelines knowing their time and responsibility to inspire by athletic actions on the field is the charge of others.”

Lussi concludes her Princeton career as the program’s record holder for goals scored and points accumulated with 53 goals and 122 points.

She is also the Ivy League’s top goal scorer since 1988, but she reserves her pride for her team’s solidarity.

“I’m excited every time I have the privilege to step on a soccer pitch with my teammates representing Princeton; the privilege is ten times as great playing

ZHENG CONG :: CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

Tyler Lussi bowed out on a stellar career as Princeton’s all-time leader in goals scored this weekend as the women’s soccer team closed out their season with a tie against Penn on Saturday.

in Robert’s Stadium. My teammates are the most amazing, unselfish, and competitive women from the greatest institution of higher learning that I have ever known.”

Freshman for ward Abby Givens, who has already made her mark starting nine games and

making three goals, also expressed similar sentiment.

“As an incoming freshman, it was expected that I commit myself fully to this program and to my new team,” Givens said about her arrival. “As a member of the team, I was expected to give every-

thing I could to help the team achieve our collective goals. My experience thus far has been incredible. Being a part of such a determined, driven, and talented group of people has been a huge learning experience and more gratifying then I could’ve ever imagined.”

W. H O C K E Y

Women’s hockey suffers pair of tough losses against talented opposition over weekend

By Clair Coughlin staff writer

Princeton Women’s Ice Hockey (3-2-1, 1-2-1 ECAC) began the weekend as an undefeated team, but fell down in their rankings as they lost to both No. 6 St. Lawrence (8-0-1, 3-0-0 ECAC) on Friday Nov. 4 and Clarkson (8-3-1, 4-0-0 ECAC) on Saturday Nov. 5 at Hobey Baker Rink.

Friday night began with the ceremonious hanging of the Tigers’ 2016 Ivy League Championship Banner. After the puck dropped, the Saints were first on the board, with Dakota Golde scoring halfway through the first period. Hannah Miller picked up a loose puck inside the left circle and passed it back to Golde at the point. Princeton junior goaltender Alysia

DaSilva was unable to block the high shot on her blocker side that Golde put past the crease. Justine Reyes of the Saints increased their lead with a power play goal in second period, giving her team a 2-0 lead. With about ten minutes left in the second period, Nadine Edney scored off of a steal at Princeton’s net, making the score 3-0 Saints. In total, the Saints produced 11

JASPER GEBHARDT :: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

The women’s hockey team dropped a rough pair of games against St. Lawrence and Clarkson this past weekend, but will look to rebound as they attempt to repeat last year’s Ivy League title.

Tweet of the Day “Snapchat story alert: hop onto PrincetonWBB-- a campus tur led by the one and only, Coach Flo. #EpicLivesHere” Courtney Banghart (@ CoachBanghart), head coach, women’s basketball

shots on goal and put some strong pressure on DaSilva, who handled the pressure well—stopping 38 of 41 shots.

Despite the temporary shut out, the Tigers were able to gain some momentum towards the end.

Princeton’s only goal was scored with about one minute left in the game, when junior forward Kiersten Falck def lected senior defender Kelsey Koelzer’s shot from the point and whipped the puck past Saints goalie Grace Harrison. Flack’s goal ended Garrison’s shutout streak at 75 stops.

Saturday was a special day for the team because Denna Laing, Princeton Women’s Hockey Player of the Great Class of 2014, was in the stands and on the ice to drop the puck and show her support. Laing played professionally for the Boston Pride but was severely injured while playing in the first ever Women’s Classic game. Kelsey Koelzer commented, “Having Denna Laing come out and drop the puck for us and knowing that she was in the stands pushing for us was a major motivator this weekend. I think on Saturday it was a huge part of our fast start and a constant reminder to

Stat of the Day

53 goals Senior forward Tyler Lussi bowed out this weekend, finishing her career with 53 goals, an all-time high for Princeton.

keep fighting throughout the game.”

The Tigers did in fact have a great start, gaining a 2-0 lead in the first period against Clarkson University. The first goal of the game was scored by senior forward Cassidy Tucker, who got the puck off of a def lection from Koelzer.

The second goal was scored by senior Morgan Sly, led by an assist from sophomore forward Karlie Lund.

Orange and Black began to lose their momentum late in the first period though, and Clarkson started its 4-goal run with a shot from Loren Gobel.

The score was tied 2-2 by a shot from Michaela Pejzlova. A shot from Kelly Mariani of Clarkson was the game winner. The Golden Knights added one last goal to secure the win.

Going forward in the season as the Tiger’s prepare to play Harvard, Koelzer remarked, “I think our team just needs to work on keeping a consistent level of play for the full 60 minutes. We have proven to ourselves that we have the speed and talent to outplay teams, so now we just need to work on getting that throughout the whole game.”

Follow us Check us out on Twitter on @princesports for live news and reports, and on Instagram on @ princetoniansports for photos!