Nov. 2, 2016

The Election Issue

2016

Photos by Joey Toczylowski ’19

2

News

Nov. 2, 2016

Next week the United States will elect its 45th president, and much is at stake. Both Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president and the first female nominee of a major party, and Donald Trump, the Republican candidate who has taken the GOP by storm, have faced major controversies throughout their campaigns and rallied intense support across the country. However, regardless of the outcome of the election, we, as college students, will be impacted. That’s why this week’s issue of the The Hawk is a special Election 2016 edition. In this issue, you’ll find information about voting, stories about how the election has impacted Saint Joseph’s University, opinions from students, and reflections on the election in pop culture. We hope you’ll take the information you learn here into the voting booth with you on Nov. 8.

-The Hawk Staff

Letter from the President The importance of casting an informed ballot To the student body, A great number of you will cast your very first vote in what is arguably among the most important and contentious elections in American history. The first time I voted for the President of the United States I was a college freshman (interestingly, there was a Clinton in that race as well). I was away from home for the first time, meeting new people, encountering new ideas and coming to understand what it means to be an adult. For me, voting was a part of that process, an essential rite of passage.

While Millennials now outnumber Baby Boomers (as well as my fellow Generation Xers), sadly only about 50 percent of them have made it to the polls in recent elections. I’m sure there are a variety of reasons, but I ask any of you who are thinking of sitting this one out because you can’t decide, to reconsider.

We live in a complicated nation situated in a complicated world. For many voters, young and old, the choice is difficult, the options are not satisfactory, the issues are too plentiful and too great, the campaign rhetoric is too polarizing.

As students at a Jesuit institution, I suggest that you look to our patron St. Ignatius for some guidance on making important or difficult decisions.

Ignatius begins by suggesting that we free ourselves from the notion that any choice will be perfect. With this weight removed, we can instead choose what is better or best for us, given our current circumstances.

To drill down, he offers another practical and oft-used strategy–weigh the pros and cons of each option by writing them all down on paper. When we are forced to fully examine our choices, clarity can emerge.

Ignatius posits that as we engage in this exercise, we can often feel ourselves being pulled in one direction or another. Ignatius also recommends that we imagine “living with” one choice or another. Easier said than done for some, but a worthy strategy. It allows us to move beyond the act of deciding, which can often paralyze us.

And, once we’ve decided, Ignatius cautions against leaving the decision behind. Instead, we should continually reflect on it. In this way, all decisions, good or bad, wrong or right have a purpose and influence our future discernments.

Each of you will vote in ensuing elections during the course of your lifetime. Your Jesuit education sharpens your intellect, tunes your moral compass and calls you to be active and engaged citizens and forces for good in the world. Casting informed ballots is just one of the many ways you can fulfill this obligation. Another is to work toward healing divides and promoting civility.

So, I urge you to head to the polls on November 8 having made your best decision, and then, whatever the outcome, commit yourself to seeking common ground with your classmates, in your communities, and across the globe.

- University President Mark C. Reed, Ed.D.

TABLE OF CONTENTS NEWS What you’ll see on the ballot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Where to vote. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Election 2016 on Hawk Hill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 College affordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The burden of student loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The Catholic vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Libertarians on campus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Where the candidates stand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

OPINIONS Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Why I’m voting for Clinton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Why I’m voting for Trump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Check yes for a third party candidate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 I felt the Bern, but now I’m with her . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A concerned conservative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Will my vote be rigged?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 The election from afar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Game theory in politics and elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Presidential candidates are getting social . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

LIFESTYLE Live from New York, it’s Election Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Controversy brewing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 DNC/RNC reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Wearing your vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The politics of fashion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Turn up to vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 From Washington, D.C. to Campion and D.B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Your election playlist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Election trivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Horoscopes and puzzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

SPORTS From athletes to activists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 The Washington Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Nov. 2, 2016

News

3

Graphic by Luke Malanga, '20

4

News

Nov. 2, 2016

Election 2016 on Hawk Hill

Top: Students gather in Forum Theater on Sept. 26 to watch the first presidential debate. Bottom: Students watch and participate in a mock debate on Oct. 3 in Forum Theater (Photos by Ana Faguy, '19, and Luke Malanga, '20).

News

Nov. 2, 2016

5

Winning the student vote Pa. Senate candidates take on college affordability ANA FAGUY ’19 News Editor Pushing past the debris of the 2016 presidential election, voters find a plethora of issues being discussed on congressional, gubernatorial, and senatorial campaigns. In Pennsylvania, voters will be partaking in a very important Senate race between Republican incumbent Pat Toomey and Democratic challenger Katie McGinty, ’85.

At Saint Joseph’s University, like on many other campuses, it can be difficult to relay the importance of national and international issues to college students. However, there is one issue, that frequently crosses the minds of many—if not most—St. Joe’s students: college affordability.

Young voters are increasingly becoming more important in this election. Both candidates have made comments and statements in regard to making college more affordable and student loans more reasonable.

The Hawk asked both candidates to comment on this topic. McGinty accepted a request for an interview, while Toomey declined our request for an interview, instead pointing us to his website.

Toomey’s website highlighted his six years of experience in the Senate and his accomplishments as junior United States Senator in Pennsylvania.

McGinty, although she has never held public office, expressed in her interview with The Hawk that she has new ideas that she plans to propose if elected.

“Well what I want to do is one put a lid on the cost of college that taxpayers are helping to pay for, but then extend the middle class tax credits and the Pell Grants so that families can afford that core cost of education,” McGinty said.

According to McGinty, the key is to tie financial incentives to the schools that are doing the best job of containing costs.

As Toomey’s website indicates, he voted in favor of the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013. This legislation established interest rates for new loans made on or after July of 2013.

Toomey also joined a bipartisan effort to reauthorize the Perkins Loan Program, which is a program that offers financial aid

to qualified low-income students.

The college affordability plans that the Pennsylvania Senate candidates proposed are not exclusive to Pennsylvania. They can be found all across the country, in Senate and House races and even in the presidential election. Many voters have been questioning the authenticity of these plans, and if elected, whether or not the candidates can truly make a difference in college affordability.

Laura Crispin, Ph.D., assistant professor of economics at St. Joe’s, examined the different candidates’ ideas on college affordability.

“Making community college free is a very interesting idea as a first step,” Crispin said.

“Imagine paying $200 per credit at a community college—you are not paying for room and board. Imagine doing that for two years and having all your credits transferred to somewhere like St. Joe’s. How much money would you save? That is insanely cheap—so cheap.”

Crispin noted that many solutions may seem feasible on paper, but when either candidate attempts to implement the plan, they

may find that these solutions are not as possible as once presumed.

“I think that it [free community college] is a very intriguing idea and would be a lot more affordable as a starting point to making four year public institutions free,” she added.

Regardless of the candidates’ respective positions on college affordability, the campaigns will need to mobilize the youth vote if they want take on Capitol Hill after Nov. 8. By discussing the important issues, particularly ones most impactful to college students, ideas like college affordability engage young voters.

The burden of student loans

Saint Joseph’s student body and faculty respond to presidential proposals ASHLEY CAPPETTA ’17 Copy Chief In the United States, the average class of 2016 graduate accumulated an estimated $37,000 in student loan debt, according to International Business Times. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton have proposed solutions to remedy the tremendous amount of debt students acquire by pursuing a college education.

For undergraduate traditional day students, the cost to attend Saint Joseph’s University is $43,020, including tuition and mandatory fees. According to the office of the provost, fifty percent of the student body at Saint Joseph’s rely on loans in order to earn a degree and graduate.

“I’m worried I’m not going to be able to pay off the debt,” Lizzie Fuller, ’18, said.

Both Trump and Clinton, according to each candidate’s campaign website, have proposed plans to remedy, and in some cases nullify, student debt.

To remedy student debt, Trump proposed an exchange for tax dollars, where, as president, he would work with Congress on reforms to ensure universities are making a good faith effort to reduce the cost of college and to reduce student debt in exchange for the federal tax breaks and tax dollars.

Clinton proposed a college affordability plan, where, as president, she would work with Congress to help borrowers refinance loans at current rates, providing debt relief to an estimated 25 million people. To reduce the burden for future borrows, Clinton will cut interest rates to ensure that the government does not profit from student loans.

St. Joe’s students have the ability to use institutional, federal, and state grants, as well as scholarships, in order to cover the cost of attendance, but students are often required to take a blended approach.

“Students have the challenge of the remaining portion [of tuition] that is not covered,” said Robert McBride, associate provost for Enrollment Management. “And that’s gift aid. What we see a lot of families doing is take blended approaches…Whether the student is taking on some of the debt [or] the parents are taking on some of the debt—they often are using the institution’s payment plan, as well.”

Traditional undergraduate day students can continue to borrow throughout the semester. The flux in the university’s borrowing trend, then, represents the percentage of students who are still paying tuition, according to McBride.

“Right now, we are at 50 percent of students borrowing, but I bet that escalates up to 53 percent,” McBride said. “Looking at the last few years, it’s been pretty flat, one or two percent up or down, but the difference is that some students take federal loans, and others take private loans. Some students take a blend.”

For Eric Alston, ’19, student loans are a necessity to be able to attend the university.

“A lot of people are worried that government is getting too involved, but I’m not,” Alston said. “I do think that I would not have my work study; I would not have my grant; I would not have my scholarship, which half comes from Saint Joseph’s, half from the government, and I would not have a lot of things. I probably would not even be able to be here, honestly.”

Alston is concerned for his financial security at the university within the scope of the presidential candidates’ proposed plans, as well.

“In terms of having a real plan, I think Hillary Clinton has a clear direction,” Alston said. “The kind of warning sign, with Trump, is his stance on government regula-

tions, and that—I’m not really sure how his plan would play out. I think there is always room for government regulation, but I think that a statement that is made that ‘government should be deleted immediately’—I think that’s a little rushed.”

Jason Mezey, Ph.D., associate professor of English, noted that the cost of attending college has gone up tremendously.

“As somebody with three kids, I am thinking ahead, and, right now, I have a very limited sense of how I am going to make that happen,” Mezey said. “It doesn’t surprise me that people would need that help in order to attend a college that has such a high price tag.”

In regard to Clinton and Trump’s proposals, Mezey’s outlook is focused on relieving students’ financial stress.

“I don’t give a lot of credence to one set of the proposals because I’m not really sure that they’re grounded in anything except contradiction…But if these things are actually doable, then I think they would help,” Mezey said. “I think that the other provisions—refinancing loans, cutting of interest rates, bringing loans into more of a non-profit side of things—that that would have to make things at least less stressful for Saint Joseph’s students.”

Financial aid services are not exclusive to St. Joe’s and loans are utilized by most students at the college and university level. For most, student loans have become a widespread problem.

“Loans are necessary for some students because the marketplace has shifted in such a way that it is very difficult to find entry-level work without having some sort of degree,” Jordan Heil, M.A., ’16 said. “And we don’t have the same kind of emphasis on labor intensive jobs that we used to have. They

are left with no alternative except to have to take out student loans just to have a fighting chance at getting a job.”

Students, according to Heil, are also relying on alternative means, such as utilizing work study, in order to sustain themselves financially during their time at St. Joe’s.

“I’ve met many students who have work study, and these students are really doing what they can to reduce the cost of attendance,” Heil said. “Students working parttime jobs in addition to their classwork, they’re doing what they can to reduce the cost of attendance—students are trying to spend as little as they can on student loans.”

Although students’ tuition and mandatory fees at St. Joe’s fund administration and faculty, students are also paying for a certain type of ‘look,’ according to Mezey.

“Students at Saint Joseph’s are paying for a campus to look a certain way, with certain facilities that meet a standard—both functionally and aesthetically,” Mezey said.

Alston believes he is paying for just that.

“You’re paying for an extremely well-rounded education,” Alston said.

“You’re paying for the ‘real deal’.”

Although the class of 2017 will face debt, the outcome of the election has the ability to greatly impact all students who are currently pursuing, or plan to pursue, higher-level education. Student debt is no longer uncommon and is anticipated by both students and families alike—regardless of either’s ability to pay.

“It’s going to be really difficult for many students to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time,” Heil said. “I think the best-case scenario is that you find a good paying job, and you are able to afford the payments at a rate of payback that isn’t going to accumulate a whole lot of interest.”

6

News

Nov. 2, 2016

More than just the two extremes

Interest in third party platforms gains momentum on Hawk Hill KATIE WHITE ’17 Lifestyle Editor Support for third party platforms is becoming increasingly popular across the country, and Hawk Hill is no exception.

Liam McGarry, ’18, is the founder of the Saint Joseph’s University chapter of the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), a national organization whose goal is “to cast the leaders of tomorrow and reclaim the policies, candidates, and direction of our government,” according to the mission statement on the group’s website.

Young Americans for Liberty doesn’t solely represent the Libertarian ticket, but offers a voice for any students who identify with third party platforms.

Though the group represents a political perspective that hasn’t been institutionally present on campus, McGarry believes that many college students identify with third party ideals, particularly in regard to the 2016 election.

“There’s a big interest, I think, now especially, given how polarized the general election is,” McGarry said. “It’s really pushing people away from parties and ways of thinking because they kind of see where that has brought us—to where you vote on the lesser of two evils, and not someone who you like or can defend.”

This belief is shared by Christopher Stevens, ’18, who represented the Libertarian perspective during the mock debate hosted by

Student Senate, College Democrats, College Republicans, and the Politics Club on Oct. 3.

“Just the idea in general that there’s only two stances on one issue or two possibilities, and that if you’re for one issue that means you have to be for a whole ticket of issuesit just doesn’t make sense to a lot of young people,” Stevens said.

In addition to those disillusioned by both the Democratic and Republican candidates, Stevens believes that Libertarian and third party groups also attract students who don’t feel represented by the polarized positions that candidates adopt during elections.

Accordingly, Stevens said support for a third party candidate is not always a “protest vote” from students, but an indication of a more moderate perspective. Voting third party, according to Stevens, acts as an effort to encourage candidates to focus their attention on voters whose interests aren’t being addressed by left or right extremes.

“This is more opening the door to future opportunities [after the election]—trying to show people that there are options in the middle and that people are going to start having to cater to more average voters,” Stevens said.

This message about alternatives is one that McGarry said he plans to bring to students through YAL’s place on campus. Already, the group has hosted sign-up events to register students to vote, distributed pamphlets about third party options, and attended a panel discussion where they handed out free copies of

the United States Constitution to students.

As the university’s YAL chapter grows in members and begins to partner with other political groups on campus, McGarry said he plans to continue encouraging students to consider a range of political alternatives.

“We want people to know that there are more options out there,” he said. “They have the ability to think for themselves; they don’t have to vote just because a party says to, or their parents say to, or because society—to an extent—says to.”

According to students like Stevens, the root to this kind of thought are already in

place on college campuses, and it won’t take long for third party groups to gain more representation at St. Joe’s, just given the nature of a university setting.

“You have your people who tend to be optimistic, tend to think we can fight the system—which I do," Stevens said. "I think a college campus is the perfect place to see that kind of support.Our generation especially is more apt to be independent and go against norms. So I think that third parties have a good shot moving forward.”

Chris Stevens, '18, at the mock debate on Oct. 3 (Photo by Luke Malanga

The Catholic vote: Influential or insignificant?

Faithful students and voters discuss 'contested identity'

MOLLY GRAB ’17 Editor in Chief Lara Miller, ’17, is facing a major dilemma in the upcoming presidential election.

“I always say that as a Catholic, I feel politically homeless,” said Miller.

Miller is one of approximately 32 million Catholic voters in the United States who face the same choice in the upcoming election. Catholic voters, who make up an estimated 25 percent of the country’s electorate, have been informed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) via their website that issues such as the dignity of human life, affordable health care, and justice in migration are among some of the issues that should be informing their vote.

“If you want to vote for people and the protection of people in this election, then you are forced to choose which issues to prioritize,” Miller said. “From a faith perspective and in my prayer, I struggle with that.”

According to Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia,

Photo by Joey Toczylowski '19

however, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have “astonishing flaws” that make both candidates undeserving of the Catholic vote by the USCCB guidelines. More recently, in an Oct. 13 article written for Catholic Philly, Chaput referred to Clinton as a “scheming, robotic liar.”

However, Catholics across the nation appear to be throwing their support to the Democratic candidate. An August 2016 poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that 55 percent of Catholics support Clinton, while 32 percent support Trump.

But a racial divide becomes clear when these statistics are broken down further.

While 76 percent of non-white Catholics support Clinton, white Catholics were more evenly split: 44 percent say they support Clinton, and 41 percent support Trump.

According to the Pew Research Center, this political divide between non-white and white Catholics in the 2016 election is, for the most part, representative of previous presidential elections. Non-white and Hispanic Catholics tend to support the Democratic candidate more heavily, but while white Catholics are statistically more likely to favor the conservative, PRRI polling suggests that a slight majority of white Catholics support Clinton in this election.

“There’s going to be a lot of people voting in a way that they otherwise wouldn’t,” said Katie Oxx, Ph.D., assistant professor of theology and religious studies at Saint Joseph’s University. “There are folks who otherwise would probably be leaning towards the Republican party, but their interests are being rejected by one candidate or the other… The invisible forms of racism and the way that they have, in the past, come out in other ways

that aren’t particularly named ‘racism,’ are being labeled as racism now. So I think that’s going to move some people around, also.”

The outcome of Catholic support for either candidate, Oxx said, is difficult to predict. She does believe, however, that current Catholic polling is accurate.

“I think that she [Clinton] appeals more to the vast majority of Catholics,” Oxx said.

Randall Miller, Ph.D., professor of history and co-professor of a course titled, “Elections in Historical Context” being taught this semester, agreed that by this point in the race, Clinton may be the better option to many Catholics.

“I would argue that Trump’s open disrespect for people—people with disabilities, people who are not ‘pretty,’ just go down the list—in terms of what we know from polling, has proven to be very, very disturbing to many Catholics,” Miller said.

Miller, however, does not believe that the Catholic electorate is a unified voting bloc to consider in 2016.

“I would argue that today, there is no such thing as ‘the Catholic vote,'" Miller said.

There are Catholic interests, there are Catholic voters. Catholic voters and Catholic interests can align and that can be important.

But there is no national Catholic bloc.”

This is, in part, due to the increasingly intersectional nature of Catholicism. According to Miller, the political interests of Catholic voters can be determined by their location, age, or race and ethnicity.

“You have to pull out which Catholic voters are you talking about, and which Catholic interests are in it,” Miller said. “Being a Catholic, itself, is a contested identity today.”

In light of this struggle, Beth Ford McNamee, assistant director of Campus Min-

istry, has been active in educating Catholic voters on Saint Joseph’s University’s campus.

“I think the primary role for Campus Ministry and our department has been bringing to light our traditional Catholic social teaching and asking students to consider Catholic social teaching values of our current, contemporary society,” McNamee said.

Grace Davis, ’17, is one student that has been taking advantage of these opportunities for political reflection. According to Davis, her Catholic faith will influence her vote this November.

“Something that I’ve just been thinking a lot about is immigration and criminal justice reform,” Davis said. “I think that’s something that’s talked a lot about on campus, too. Just making sure that even the people that are marginalized are still acknowledged as humans, that’s important.”

Though Lara Miller, '17, considers herself “politically homeless,” she also echoed Davis, stating that her faith has caused her to think deeply on many social issues.

“Absolutely—immigration, criminal justice reform, race relations, abortion, the refugee crisis—all those issues involve people,” Miller said.

Though Miller noted that this election puts many Catholics such as herself in a difficult position in respect to which candidate, if either, better represents Catholic teachings, she is ultimately hopeful for the future.

“It’s not just about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton," Miller said. "At the end of the day, this is America and it’s a democracy, not a monarchy. [It’s important] to make sure that your vote is informed for all the people on the ballot and who’s going to uphold Catholic beliefs on the entire ballot.”

Opinions

Nov. 2, 2016

Editorial:

Take-aways from our first election

Twitter was a major player.

Social media, like us, has come of age during the 2016 election. We are one of the first generations to fully see its impact on political conversations. The use of Twitter to share articles, to post graphics with statistics, to live-tweet debates, and to live-stream candidates’ speeches is unprecedented in election history. No one can argue that Donald Trump did not take Twitter by storm and make it his own, bringing this popular platform to a new level of importance. Bernie Sanders’ movement also gained nearly all of its traction among millennials on social media platforms.

Fact checking was our best friend.

As college students, we do a lot of fact checking. We know that there are different kinds of sources and varying levels of legitimacy. All too often, we see outrageous claims about the candidates made without substantial support. During the debates, watching the fact-checking websites was especially critical. We cannot just invent facts or believe something because we want it to be true. Fact checking is an important part of being well-informed in every aspect of our academic, professional, and now political, lives.

7

For many Saint Joseph’s University students, much of our staff included, Nov. 8, 2016 will mark the first time we cast our votes in a presidential election. As young, millennial voters, our habits and preferences have been studied, debated, and discussed by candidates for close to two years. We’re a crucial voting bloc; according to the Pew Research Center, millennials make up 31 percent of the electorate. It’s important for us to recognize the power that our vote has and to fulfill our duty to vote for the candidate who we believe will provide the best future for our country.

With that in mind, The Hawk Staff wants to take this week to reflect on what we have learned over the course of this unique, fascinating, and often ridiculous election cycle. What do we know now that we didn’t before? What lessons will we take with us as we continue to vote in the future? However, instead of simply writing about our experiences, we figured we’d act in true millennial form—and tweet it at you.

Twitter can also distract us from the full story.

Twitter served a dual purpose in this election. It fed us information, as well as memes and jokes, and provided out-of-context sound bytes as well as full stories. While Twitter provides information quickly, it often gets lost in information that distracts and misinforms. Many argue that social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram (or, if you follow Pat Toomey’s campaign, Vine) distract us rather than keep us informed. We have access to more information than ever, but we need to weed through the Ken Bone memes and “Which Pantsuit Should You Wear Based on your Zodiac Sign” to find the critical pieces we are looking for. We’ve been inundated with superfluous content, and have had to learn to weed it out.

Campaign mail can be informative, but also overwhelming.

Every time we opened the mailbox, we were bombarded with paper mailers for candidates. We also had a full inbox of emails soliciting campaign donations or volunteer work. Sometimes they even called or texted our cell phones. We’ve learned that it can be very informative, but at times, also very annoying. Now that we are adults with our own phone numbers and addresses, we’ve realized all too soon the reality our parents have dealt with for decades.

Choose respectful dialogue over hateful shouting.

No one likes that troll on Facebook.

You know who we mean: they comment on every post that does not support their candidate, even if you only vaguely knew them from band camp three years ago. We need to reach a point where constructive dialogue and debate rise above name-calling and hate. We are mature enough not to steal lawn signs or make rude gestures at our ideological opposition. The levels of outright harassment and disrespect rose to new levels this election cycle, and there is no point in contributing to the negativity.

We are ultimately the ones that choose how to handle interactions with people who disagree with us. If you know you are going to disagree, act respectfully. If the person that you are talking to just wants to fight, you can always walk away. No matter who you support, take a page out of Michelle Obama’s book: When they go low, you go high.

The presidential race isn’t the only race.

While every four years we elect a president into the White House, there are many other elections on the ballot.

Websites like ballotready.org tell you who and what will be on your ballot so that you can educate yourself ahead of time. Beyond federal races, there are state and local elections and sometimes even ballot questions or referendums.

We’ve learned the importance of doing research in order to make an informed vote.

Rise of the third party.

Third-party candidates played a bigger role in the 2016 election than in past years, and we learned to pay attention to them. If you have no idea who the third-party candidates are, try doing a little research. By educating ourselves on the political and philosophical beliefs of candidates such as Jill Stein (Green Party) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), we answer the call of another civic duty. By educating ourselves on a diversity of beliefs, we grow in our own political ideologies and challenge our minds to think beyond the mainstream.

Mark your calendar.

Given the nature and number of the candidates this primary season, we learned firsthand how important it is to know the deadlines for voter registration and absentee ballots. Different states have different rules about who can vote on what ballot during the primaries, and at what time you have to be registered. Even a few of Trump’s children missed the deadline. Many non-registered Democrats in Pa. wanted to support Bernie, and many non-registered Republicans wanted to support anyone but Trump. Even for the general election, rules about applying for and mailing absentee ballots can be confusing. These logistical rules seem minor, but they’re crucial to ensuring that our vote counts.

This election is destined to remain a point of discussion for years to come. For first-time voters, and millennials at that, this election cycle has certainly been rife with heated topics and points of political contention. But as a generation empowered with the privilege to vote and affect change within our government, we look forward to the outcome of this historical moment in American history. As a staff, we know that we we will walk away from this this election having learned much about ourselves, others, and the United States, and we hope that all St. Joe’s students can say the same. Follow The Hawk as we live-tweet the election this Tuesday, and don’t forget to do your civic duty and vote for your future.

- The Hawk Staff Graphics by Krista Jaworski, ’17

EDITOR IN CHIEF Molly Grab ’17 MANAGING EDITOR Angela Christaldi ’17 COPY CHIEF Ashley Cappetta ’17 BUSINESS DIRECTOR Julia Le ’19 FACULTY ADVISER Shenid Bhayroo

NEWS EDITOR Ana Faguy ’19 ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR Sam Henry ’19 OPINIONS EDITOR Maria Spirk ’17 ASSISTANT OPINIONS EDITOR Victoria Tralies ’18 LIFESTYLE EDITOR Katie White ’17

ASSISTANT LIFESTYLE EDITOR Ciarra Bianculli ’17 SPORTS EDITOR Christy Selagy, M.A. ’17 ASSISTANT SPORTS EDITOR Nick Mandarano ’18 CREATIVE DIRECTOR Krista Jaworski ’17 PHOTO EDITOR Joey Toczylowski ’19

DIGITAL MEDIA MANAGER Caitlyn Sottile ’18 ASSISTANT BUSINESS Kristen Adams ’17 ASSISTANT COPY The Hawk welcomes Abigail Gorman ’17 letters to the editor Liz Krotulis ’17 (400-600 words).

Mark De Leon ’17 They can be emailed to hawk.editorial@gmail.com.

Vivian Milan ’18

8

Opinions

Nov. 2 , 2016

TRUMP VS.

CLINTON ANN MARIE MALONEY ’18 Special to The Hawk On Nov. 8, I will cast my vote for Hillary Clinton to be the next—and the first— woman president of the United States. I will vote for her with enthusiasm and with pride.

One of the many reasons I’m voting for Hillary is due to her 30 years of public service. Knowing that she has dedicated her life to the often grueling and thankless task of public service and governing tells me that Hillary actually wants to serve the public—the most basic responsibility of the presidency.

Throughout her career, Hillary has demonstrated immense talent for listening.

She listens to people in order to better understand their concerns; she then collaborates with others to create a solution. Her career tells me that she is willing to work with communities and involve people in the policy-making process to produce needed change.

Her record tells me that her intentions are pure—that she simply wants government to solve the necessary problems.

I do not shy away from admitting that Hillary has made mistakes in her career as a public servant, especially during her term as Secretary of State. However, because I understand that Hillary is no less human than I, then I do not believe her past missteps disqualify her from being president. In fact, the way Hillary has bravely met the repercussions of some of her failings, to me, says far more about her as a person than the mistakes themselves; Hillary acknowledged her mistakes and she publicly accepted accountability rather than avoiding the consequences. Accountability of our elected officials is absolutely essential to having a good government.

Knowing that Hillary has been willing to very publicly accept and admit her faults and missteps makes me believe that she will be a strong and effective leader.

Fighting for working women, working families, and their children has been the cornerstone of Hillary’s 30 years of public service as well as the highest priority of her campaign. Most of Hillary’s policies are centered on making the work-life balance easier for middle- and low-income Americans. Among her campaign promises, Hillary includes fighting to raise the federal minimum wage above the current $7.25 an hour, working to guarantee equal pay, and ensuring twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave; all of which will raise the incomes of and create more economic opportunity for women. Simultaneously, Hillary wants to control and provide relief for the costs of childcare and pre-K, through measures such as expanding the refund for the child tax credit and doubling its value for young children.

Finally, as a college student with student loans, what makes me most excited to vote for Hillary is her comprehensive plan to make higher education or vocational school accessible to anyone who works hard to attend. I know going to college is an immense privilege, but I also know that a college degree has replaced a high school education. In most cases, a college education is a necessary qualification to land a well-paying, available job in the current American economy. Hillary wants to help all students manage their student loan debt and will make attending a public university either free or debt free for the people who most need the economic opportunity college can offer, such as low-income students and student-parents.

A common perception in presidential elections is that we don’t just vote for a candidate, but for a vision of America; I am voting for Hillary because she shares my vision for our country. Hillary and I both believe in the possibilities America can hold for its citizens. Our country can and must be a place where every citizen can flourish and succeed. Both Hillary and I have confidence that America can truly promise opportunity, dignity, and justice for all. It is with this confidence and this vision in mind that I will walk into the voting booth on Nov. 8, voting for Hillary Clinton to be our next president.

CLAUDIA WERT ’17 Special to The Hawk We, the Deplorables of the United States of America, do pledge our unwavering support for the Republican presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump.

We wholeheartedly believe that America is the greatest nation on earth, and enshrined in its foundation are the fundamental rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Our American spirit is defined by experimentation, independence, and an unquenchable thirst for success. Yet there is a war for the soul of this great nation. Donald Trump is fighting the establishment forces that would surrender America to the false song of globalism.

He is fighting the unethical bureaucrats in Washington, to protect our economic prosperity, to restore our international standing, and to defend our sovereign borders.

For too long, American success has been mired in the swamp of inbred bureaucratic depravity that is Washington, D.C. Freedom fighters, like James O’Keefe of Project Veritas and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, have revealed the length of collusion between crony capitalists, foreign entities, and the Washington elite. Scandals such as “Pay to Play,” EmailGate, FileGate, and the Benghazi affair have shaken the American people’s confidence in our entrenched ruling elite.

The article “Trump’s Ethic Reform Proposal Wins Praise from Nevertrump Senator,” written by Derek Hunter in the Daily Caller, speaks to the these solutions the Republican candidate can provide our country.

Donald Trump’s ethics reform proposal lays out a clear five-point solution. First, he proposes a “‘ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government for five years after they leave government service.’” Additionally, he requests that “Congress pass the same lobbying ban on itself and Congressional staffers.” The rest of the article gives more insight to the rest of Trump’s plan with regard to these issues.

America prides itself on its economic success. Our $18.5 trillion economy constitutes 24.5 percent of the Gross World Product. We have such potential and growth already within our midst— that of booming infrastructure, plentiful natural resources, rapid technological innovation, and a creative populace.

Wilbur Ross, a private-equity investor and his colleague, Peter Navarro, an academic, penned an article for the Wall Street Journal explaining the benefits of his economic plan.

“In our dynamic scoring of Mr. Trump’s plan, we found that the positive revenue offsets from increased growth derived from reduced regulatory burdens, lower energy costs and the elimination of the U.S. trade deficit amount to $2.4 trillion,” said Ross and Navarro.

The most controversial aspect of the Trump platform is his unwavering commitment to defend America’s sovereign borders. His plan to “build a wall” to stem the tide of illegal immigration has detractors slandering him as a “racist.” Yet, Trump strongly believes that America owes a debt of gratitude to immigrants.

“We’ve admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015…

Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. But we now have an obligation to them, and to their children, to control future immigration—as we have following previous immigration waves—to ensure assimilation, integration, and upward mobility.”

His 10-step plan for immigration reform not only calls for a zero-tolerance policy toward illegals, but an end for funding to sanctuary cities, and “to triple the number of ICE deportation officers.” The goal is to preserve, protect, and defend the American populace against those who would come to do us harm.

Due to our attempts to end the crime of defending our sovereign borders, oppose corruption in our national leadership, object to oppressive “regulatory burdens,” and fight for American values, we have been labeled a “basket of deplorables.” America, and the world in general, is heading down a dangerous path.

In the 2016 election, we have a choice.

The American people can surrender to the liberal establishment who would change the very nature of our country, or they can reject the status quo and stand up for the right to self-determination and prosperity. We the deplorables, of the United States of America, will go to the polls on Nov. 8 to fight to make America great again.

Graphics created by Krista Jaworski, ’17

Opinions

Nov. 2, 2016

9

Check yes for a third party candidate Why voting for a third party candidate is not a wasted vote CHRIS STEVENS ’18 Special to The Hawk My name is Chris Stevens, and yes, I’m voting third party.

For me, there are two reasons a person votes. Obviously, the first is to get a representative elected. The second reason, now more relevant than ever, is to bring focus to a cause in order to enact change for the future. Voting for an extreme you do not believe in can only result in the perpetuation of those same ideas you dissent from.

As a college student, a registered Republican, a social liberal, a supporter of the military and second amendment, and a proponent of a whole host of seemingly contradictory opinions, I do not fall neatly into one of two absolutes. My support for Governor Gary Johnson is based on the idea that the two parties should not be forced to cater to the extreme 30 percent of their primary election voting base; they should instead be catering to the other end of the spectrum, the end that has mixed feelings, new opinions, and is willing to compromise.

A strong third party turnout does

more than say, “I am not satisfied with the two prominent options;” it says, “If you want my vote, move towards center and address my issues, or we can find someone that will.”

Libertarianism is about a belief in the highest degree of personal freedom in every aspect of your life. Nobody, especially the government, should be able to dictate your private affairs, quash your entrepreneurial spirit, or take your hard-earned money to squander it on something you do not believe in. The pithy saying that has come to be associated with the platform sums it up best, “Out of your pocket and out of your bedroom!” Governors Johnson and Weld have used the recent popularity of the Libertarian platform to bring attentions to some most ubiquitous grievances that Americans, specifically, young Americans, have.

A non-interventionist policy of only judicious use of the military is something that has resonated with me in particular. As a 20-something, it is my peers, my

friends, myself, and my siblings that would be risking their lives by enlisting. Johnson has pledged to get the approval of Congress—as was always intended in the Constitution—a source more connected to the people, before ordering my generation to fight, kill, and all too often die.

In healthcare, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, is headed into what is called a death spiral and will not last in its current form. The Libertarian solution of free market health care allows providers to compete at all levels and across state lines for your business, resulting in higher quality and lower cost care for everyone, not just those at the top or at the bottom. Lowering taxes would allow citizens to keep their own money; balancing the budget would alleviate the impending debt on youth; and opening up trade would allow new ideas and goods to be exchanged faster and cheaper than ever. The Libertarian stance is one that combines the best ideas of both the current parties, fiscal re-

sponsibility and social tolerance of all.

The most common reproach I hear from voters on both sides of the aisle is that I am wasting my vote—throwing away my right and letting the other guys win. For me, a Libertarian vote is not a throw away.

It is not a vote for the other guy and not a waste. A wasted vote is voting for someone that you don’t believe in.

So, this November I will not be wasting my vote; instead I will be making a claim that there is path in the middle, that the ideas raised by the Libertarian candidates resonate stronger than ever, and that politicians will need to realize this path is in fact not the one less traveled. It is for this reason that I will be exercising my greatest right as an American: the right to force change and to support a belief in our liberty. I encourage you all to research, consider, and hopefully vote for Governor Johnson as well.

Graphic by Krista Jaworski, ’17

Reigniting the flame I felt the Bern, but now I’m with her MAXWELL BARILLE ’18 Special to the Hawk I am an unapologetic liberal; I am an idealist; I am a dreamer. But, in a weird way, I am also a pragmatist.

In the 2016 presidential primaries, I voted for Senator Bernie Sanders because I felt drawn to his campaign’s message. I, like many of my fellow millennials, was then bitter in defeat of Hillary Clinton landing a spot on the Democratic ticket—and for a split second, I had even considered a protest vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. I went into the week of the Republican National Convention with my mind still not made up as to whom I was voting for, be it Stein or Clinton, but what transpired during the RNC in Cleveland and at the DNC right here in Philadelphia, set me straight. After those two weeks this past summer, my pragmatic side won.

The convention weeks made me recognize the importance of electing Hillary Clinton as our next president. For me, Donald Trump represented all that was wrong with our country: a serial misogynist and racist, an advocate of violence towards protesters and generally towards people who disagreed with him, and a promulgator of an exclusive narrative of who exactly belonged in our great country. I vehemently disagree with

Donald Trump on almost every one of his policy proposals and I can make arguments against all of them, but that’s not where my disgust with his candidacy lies. I can agree to disagree on things like big versus small government and policy issues; however, I cannot simply agree to disagree once a campaign or candidate openly embraces something like racism, sexism, or homo/transphobia.

I am a firm believer in an America that is for all of its citizens, not just those who fit someone’s simple definition of who an “American” should be. I am afraid of handing unimaginable powers to a man who can be provoked into pettiness and childish behavior by a tweet.

I am voting for Hillary Clinton because I believe in her message that we are “Stronger Together.” I believe in her vision of America.

I believe that we must keep moving forward or risk being left behind. I strongly identify with Secretary Clinton’s message that we all do better when the least among us does better. I am voting for Clinton because I believe she is qualified to be president through her years of experience as First Lady, as my Senator, and as my Secretary of State. Simply put, I have not known a year where Hillary Clinton has not represented me in one way

or another.

I would be remiss to not mention that I do have my qualms about Secretary Clinton because no candidate is perfect. For example, I fear she may be too pro-interventional on foreign policy as evidenced by her support for U.S. military interventions in Libya, Syria, and Iraq. I also fear that she may be too friendly with the big banks and Wall Street as evidenced by her numerous speaking engagements with said banks. My main concerns with her are in the policy arena where a voter naturally has to make concessions once a nominee is chosen, especially since Clinton is much more politically moderate than I am.

However, my concerns with Trump lie in the fundamentally hopeless way he sees my country as evidenced by his constant iteration that America is not currently great.

In the way he refuses to admit whether he will accept the elections results if he loses; in the way he constantly undermines American democratic institutions by stating that the election is rigged; in the way he treats women through the numerous comments and tweets demeaning women, the groping and sexual assault/harassment allegations levied at him; in the way his campaign marginaliz-

es Muslims, by proposing a ban on entrance to all of those of the Muslim faith, and Latino/as, with his comments concerning Mexican immigrants “They’re bringing drugs.

They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people”, war heroes, as apparent in his statement on Senator John McCain “I like people who weren’t captured”, and disabled people, in his mocking of reporter Serge Kovaleski; and in the fact that he has zero legislative experience.

I believe there is a reason why respected magazines such as The Atlantic (their third ever presidential endorsement) and Foreign Policy (their first ever presidential endorsement) have endorsed Clinton over Trump. I believe there is a reason that several prominent Republicans such as Colin Powell, George H.W. Bush, Robert Kagan, and Meg Whitman have said they will vote for or have endorsed Clinton.

I believe in my heart that despite my policy disagreements with Secretary Clinton, she is far and away more fit to run this great country of ours than Donald Trump, and that is why she will have my vote in November.

Opinions

Nov. 2 , 2016

10

A concerned conservative Jumping off the Trump train JUSTIN RUSSELL ’17 Special to The Hawk My fellow Conservatives, Republicans, and Libertarians, I know how you feel this election cycle, and for that matter, your entire college experience.

You feel ashamed of your views and you are afraid to share them. Being a free thinker rather than a John Oliver mouth piece frightens you, and for good reason: Conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos are being banned from college campuses, professors spin liberal narratives as objective reality, and all the entertainment you enjoy, including sports, have been co-opted. You cannot listen to a song on Spotify or watch ESPN without being told how to think and vote.

Wikileaks has released multiple Democratic National Convention emails which reveal corruption and cover-ups. These stories, while usually devastating, are falling on the deaf ears of the narrative-driven media; maybe because they were caught colluding with the Clinton campaign. CNN even performed the nothing to see here “routine” calling it “illegal” to own the emails and urged their audience to hear about them “through us.” Reminds you of “1984,” right

guys?

These bastions of free thought and expression have remorselessly elected Hillary Clinton. Despite the pay to play extortion of the Clinton Foundation, the shaming of her husband’s assault victims, her far, far, far left policies, her botching of the Benghazi situation, and her “extremely careless” handling of classified data which potentially put American lives at risk, you are told every day that the only reason you oppose Hillary is because you hate women. This is nonsense. But the alternative, our alternative, is no better.

Donald J. Trump’s campaign was viscerally exciting. Many of the real estate tycoon’s initial policies sounded vote worthy: The wall, the appointment of conservative judges, a halt of the U.S. dependency on foreign oil, and finally an “everyone is held accountable” business mentality in Washington.

Although his candidacy began hopeful, the “Trump train” has since derailed, bringing destruction and misery in its wake.

Trump has become near unelectable, and if by some miracle he is elected, the situation for young conservatives and America will

only get worse.

Like him or not, Trump is a parasite inside the Republican party. His thin skin, “textbook racism,” and the Trump tapes, of which there are definitely more, make him unpalatable to a majority of the electorate.

Democrats will use his horrendous character as a political weapon against everyone who has either endorsed or simply not condemned him. If you need proof check out Katie McGinty’s, ’85, ads against Pat Toomey. The adverts feature Trump despite the fact that, you know, she’s not running against Trump. A Republican party that has been superimposed with the Trump logo will not survive. Democrats will win back the Senate and the House bringing about an era of unprecedented leftist policy. It will be the future of conservatism that will suffer the most.

Furthermore, Trump does not embody your beliefs nor does he like his fellow Republicans. Aside from the fact that he has been a registered Democrat most of his life, Trump wants to open libel laws that would restrict journalistic freedom, he supports “No Fly No Buy” in regards to gun own-

ership rights, he supports silly economic protectionist policies which would be disastrous for the economy, and he wants to punish and blackmail private businesses if they leave the United States. These are all policies that conservatives have correctly disavowed in the past, but this time we find ourselves embracing them because “He’s not Hillary.”

Don’t forget the specter of Trump TV which looms larger every day, an eerie shadow and potential proof of the belief that this campaign might have been a cheap sales trick all along.

I understand your anger, I feel it too, but you don’t need this man. We don’t need to make our situation worse just because we are desperate for a Republican executive. A Trump win will only be enjoyed momentarily but it will undoubtedly destroy the chance of a much better solution in the future.

Think about the decision that you are making on Nov. 8. Vote for someone who holds your values or vote for Trump. But be warned; at the end of the day it’s us who will be waiting in the wings with the mops and apologizing for someone who doesn’t even like us.

Will my vote be rigged?

The concern about voter intimidation during this election cycle MARIA SPIRK ’17 Opinions Editor As we reach the end of this election cycle, it has become apparent that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, believes that the election is rigged. Specifically, he believes the election in Philadelphia, where many Saint Joseph’s University students, myself included, will vote on Nov. 8, is rigged.

As voters, we want a free and fair election, and there are legal procedures in place to ensure that this happens. A Univeristy of Loyola professor found, in one study, that out of over one billion ballots, one study only 31 instances of voter fraud, meaning that this type of rigging is incredibly rare.

The aim of Trump’s comments is not to preserve Philadelphian integrity: it is to plant unfounded fears about rigging the election that have the potential to lead to voter intimidation and suppression in the Philadelphia area. Although the wording of Trump’s various assertions that the Philadelphia vote is rigged are vague, he appears to be calling for his supporters to monitor the polling places to ensure that voters are who they say they are. For example, on Oct. 10, Trump told the audience at his rally in Ambridge, Pa., “…watch other communities, we don’t want this election stolen from us.”

In Philadelphia, and the state of Pennsylvania, there is, in fact, a legal procedure for citizens to watch the polls to ensure fairness.

The Pennsylvania Department of State issued a document titled “Guidance in Rules in Effect at the Polling Place on Election Day” in October to clarify certain voting procedures. It explains who is permitted within polling places, namely poll workers, judges of the election, poll watchers from that county, and up to 10 registered voters at a time.

Poll watchers, who Trump presumably aimed his comments at, are certified, trained persons registered to vote within the county where they will be stationed. Political parties may have up to three poll watchers at each precinct to ensure that proper voting procedures are followed. They are not allowed to interact with voters and must take any concerns or challenges to the judge of elections.

I fully expect to see certified poll watchers from my neighborhood of Wynnefield at Samuel L. Gompers Elementary School when I vote next Tuesday. Properly certified officials from both parties could and should be at every Philadelphia polling place. Further, having properly certified Trump supporters as poll watchers would prevent Trump from claiming that the election was rigged, because his own supporters would be there to witness the lack of fraud.

Philadelphia has about 700,000 voters, and every year there are a number of requests for poll watcher certificates. Howev-

er, despite Trump’s rallying cry, Philadelphia City Commissioner Donald Garecht has said that they have not received an unusually high number of requests for certifications this year.

The reality is that there are very few Republicans in some areas of the city, as evidenced by the fact that some voting precinct divisions in Philadelphia in 2012 did not have a single registered Republican. Statistically speaking, urban areas tend to lean very liberal. They also tend to have a high minority population. African Americans make up 44 percent of Philadelphia’s population and Trump currently polls at less than 10 percent with African American voters, depending on which poll you follow. It is not surprising there are not large numbers of Republican poll watchers in Philadelphia.

To combat this, Trump is calling for out-of-town voters to travel to city polling places and supervise as untrained, uncertified, unofficial poll watchers. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported last week that the Pennsylvania GOP even “filed a federal lawsuit demanding that out-of-county poll watchers be permitted in Philadelphia” just last week.

This legislation is detrimental to a free and fair vote because it opens the door to voter intimidation, specifically in different Philadelphia neighborhood communities.

Within the polling place, voters should not feel threatened into changing their

vote, or having the validity of their vote challenged. Philadelphia City Councilman Curtis Jones Jr. expressed concerns over the presence of non-Philadelphia residents leading to voter suppression and cited a situation in the 2003 Philadelphia mayoral election where “voting integrity” officers handed out fliers threatening to go door to door looking for outstanding warrants or violation tickets on Election Day. But because Trump supporters are not applying for legal entry to be poll watchers in Philadelphia—as the state legislation likely will not pass—many fear that protesters from outside of Philadelphia will arrive to harass voters outside the polling location.

In attempting to rally supporters to come stand outside polling places and protest or scare voters he has crossed the line. If your campaign relies on certain voters being afraid for their safety so that they do not vote, what does that say about your chances?

If you need to prep your supporters with the idea that you lost because it was rigged before the vote even happened, what does that say about the success of your campaign?

Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican, sums up the response Philadelphia gives to the rigged vote allegations well, saying, “The real threat to the integrity of elections is irresponsible accusations that undermine confidence in the electoral process.”

Opinions

Nov. 2, 2016

11

The election from afar The perspective of the presidential election from down under Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

DANIELLE ZABIELSKI ’17 Hawk Staff With the amount of coverage the American presidential election gets in Australia, you’d swear the Aussies were electing a new Prime Minister.

Everywhere you look here—on news broadcasts, in magazines and on the covers of nearly all the daily papers—you’ll find the now infamous visages of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. When pictured, they’re shown duking it out, their faces contorted mid-speech and scolding fingers pointed at one another. Reading the newspaper each morning, with its coverage of the latest debate or scandal, makes me feel as though I’m back in the States. That is, of course, until I reach an opinion piece about Malcolm Turnbull and I’m once again reminded where I actually am.

In all seriousness, though, we have Australians (and, I would argue, most of the world) on edge right now. I didn’t consider it much prior to arriving here, but Australia mirrors a great deal of its culture on that of the United States. While this is sometimes beneficial for the country, it’s also precisely what makes this election season so horrifying. As my Australian friend Emily says,

“[the U.S. election] is something that will surely have effects on us, but we can do nothing about it.” Although we’re technically electing a leader of only the United States, our decision will have repercussions far outside the land of the free.

Despite this grave truth, the entire election ordeal is seen as somewhat of a joke over here. When people talk with me about the nominees, they’re absolutely perplexed by the fact that Trump has made it this far in the race. Clinton fares a bit better, with people tending to regard her in a more positive light. Yet more often than not, Australians prefer Clinton simply because she’s not Trump. Third-party candidates are rarely mentioned in the media or in conversation.

People wonder how the race to the White House has boiled down to this: a decision solely based on who’s the lesser of both evils.

The idea of having a fairly strict two-party system is absurd to most Australians. Now, one could potentially say that Australia is taking a similar route to the U.S., with the prevalence of their Liberal and Labor parties; but in actuality, they have a great deal of political groups with relatively the same

amount of popularity and prominence.

Though Australians may have more viable parties to choose from in their elections, there is something our elections certainly have more of: Time. The election has essentially been going on for one year now, beginning with speculation of potential candidates and culminating with these last few debates.

Australia’s last election, which took place in July, lasted for a total of eight weeks—and that time span was considered to be far too long. The sheer length of the U.S. election process is considered unnecessary, annoying and even indulgent to Australians. But then again, you find people with similar views in

America.

Watching the U.S. presidential race unfold from the vantage point of Australia has been both enlightening, but also dismaying.

While I’ve been here, I’ve been able to see America in a very different light, one that isn’t always the most flattering. But even the negative opinions and remarks have been invaluable, causing me to rethink some of my views and strengthen others.

Even if you’re not residing out of the country, it might be beneficial to try to examine this election through the eyes of someone who is—because at the end of the day, this isn’t just about us.

12

Opinions

Nov. 2, 2016

the real truth about

REAL numbers

Game theory in politics and elections

SARAH COONEY ’17 Hawk Staff On Tuesday, Nov. 8, millions of Americans will descend on voting booths to cast their votes for the 45th President of the United States in what is being hailed as one of the most interesting and important elections in history.

For political scientists, each individual’s choice is significantly influenced by a host of interconnected factors like age, gender, race, religion, or socioeconomic status.

However, for mathematicians, there are deeper forces at work—forces intrinsically present in the voting system itself.

Voting theory is a sub-branch of the mathematical field called game theory. Despite its name, game theory is far from inconsequential. Game theory is the mathematical analysis of conflict and cooperation in competitive situations where the choices and strategies of each participant depend upon those of the other participants. For instance, an election.

The United States uses a voting system called the plurality system. The rules are really quite simple: Each participant selects

the single candidate that she or he feels is the best choice.

The problems—what makes it interesting for game theorists—arise when there are more than two choices.

Although there are generally only two candidates neck-and-neck for the presidency, the choices are actually endless. As of mid-October, almost 2,000 individuals had filed statements declaring their candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. Of course, most of those names won’t show up on the ballot in any state on Nov. 8, but many ballots will show upwards of four or five candidates. With the write-in option, the number of choices skyrockets.

The major problem with this system is insincere, or strategic, voting. In this strategy, voters select a candidate other than their first choice in an attempt to take down a popular candidate to whom they are strongly opposed. For example, voting Clinton when you want to vote for Johnson but hate Trump. This choice is inevitable and, practically, not a bad strategy. How-

ever, strategic voting is a violation of the Condorcet Criterion for fairness.

In voting theory, the ideal system does not violate what are called “fairness criteria;” these are statements defined by voting theorists that seem as if they should be true in any fair election. The Condorcet Criterion, named after an early game theorist, states that if there is a preferred choice in every one-to-one matchup with every other candidate, that choice should be the winner. In other words, if every voter truly chose their top choice, then it would be clear which candidate was the number one choice of the most people. This candidate should win.

However, this is not the reality of our election.

In 1952, Kenneth Arrow proved what is now called Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. Don’t let the word theorem scare you; it’s actually quite straightforward: “A voting method that is democratic and always fair is a mathematical impossibility.”

That’s right—it has been mathemati-

cally proven that there is no perfect system.

The fact is, when there are more than two candidates, every system has the potential to violate one or more fairness criterion.

This knowledge may seem disheartening, but I don’t think so. In some ways imperfection is room for growth and change.

We may be limited, but many functions go on forever getting infinitely closer to their limits even if they never touch them.

On Tuesday, we all have two choices to make. Obviously we as Americans will choose a 45th president, but individually we must make the choice to become participants in the game. After all, game theory wouldn’t be a very interesting field if there were no players to study.

And without players, who would create change and make improvements moving us, infinitesimally perhaps, toward the limit of our best selves and our best country— even of our best world?

Presidential candidates are getting social The importance of social media in the 2016 presidential election CARTER TODD ’19 Special to The Hawk Election coverage is something everyone loves to complain about, but won’t look away from.

The truth is this: Election coverage is simply a guilty pleasure that most people will claim they “can’t escape from,” even though they look forward to the next breaking news segment. But once it’s all said and done, records will shatter with an estimated $11.4 billion that will be spent on political advertisements in this year alone.

Politicians are now wielding that budget to reach people on various popular websites, such as CNN and YouTube. For those who use Snapchat, you may have noticed that advertisements for both candidates have made their way to the app; the candidates have nestled their way into the daily lives of Americans by any means necessary. As we

are force-fed election coverage, it becomes harder each day to decipher the facts from the scandals and from the opinions.

By using apps such as Twitter and Snapchat to gain popularity, candidates are forced to abide by the boundaries of said apps. Through this process, Clinton and Trump must condense their message into either 140 characters or 10 seconds of video. These short clips are what contribute most to the dreaded sound bites, assumptions, and lack of substance throughout this election process. While running for office, candidates try to convince us that their presidency is all that is required to make serious change. In his RNC acceptance speech, Donald Trump proclaimed, “I alone can fix it” when referring to the state of our nation. In reality, it is impossible for

the president to have such control but in an election, those words are music to the ears of voters. As citizens, instead of demanding facts and legitimacy, we have latched onto all the drama surrounding the election.

In essence, the point of using the media in an election is to be highly regarded amongst the people in order to receive their votes. Unfortunately, much of this election has avoided actual substantial material and instead simply followed trends, scandals, and polls. In order to seize control of an electoral vote, candidates now have to make their personalities attractive to voters more than anything else. We would elect a person we enjoy over a skilled politician.

This year it seems that neither candidate has a personality that is going to win over voters, thus making for a competitive race.

Images courtesy of Creative Commons

While there appears to be no questioning the interest of voters this year, the real concern lies within what exactly is triggering that interest. This election has been stained with controversy and accusations.

Instead of choosing a fall TV drama, many Americans have been entertained by staying involved with the election. To me, this is an area of concern.

This election is sure to change American politics more than any other in recent history. On the upside, history tells us that within the most dire times of our nation, when all seems to be lost, that is where some of our nation’s greatest heroes step up to take charge and set the country in a new, prosperous direction.

Lifestyle

Nov. 2, 2016

13

Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

Live from New York, it’s Election Day! Counting down the best ‘Saturday Night Live’ political parodies ROSE WELDON ’19 Hawk Staff Election Day is nearly upon us, and I, like most people, have been keeping up with everything new in politics and waiting to see it parodied on “Saturday Night Live.” To mark the occasion, here are my five favorite political impressions from SNL. 5. Dana Carvey as George H.W. Bush (1987–1993) The first character on the list is comedian Dana Carvey’s caricature of former president George H.W. Bush, a high-voiced, energetic personality with a catchphrase: “Not gonna do it!” Carvey played Bush Sr. an astounding 39 times between the start of his SNL tenure in 1986 and his last appearance in 2000, and the president himself made an appearance in one of his monologues.

4. Kate McKinnon as Hillary Clinton (2015–present) You could argue that Kate McKinnon won her Emmy Award solely because of her portrayal of Secretary Clinton this previous season, and you know what? That sounds about right. McKinnon is the latest in a long

line of women to play the former First Lady, and while hers is arguably the least accurate, it’s also the most comedic. She accentuates Clinton’s ambition and difficulty to ingratiate herself with millennials, and allows herself to let loose. Secretary Clinton herself even appeared as the character “Val the Bartender” in a sketch last October, where she and McKinnon bonded over drinks.

3. Tina Fey as Sarah Palin (2008, sporadically since) Tina Fey wasn’t a cast member on SNL during the 2008 election, having left two years earlier to create “30 Rock.” Nevertheless, creator Lorne Michaels asked her to return to the show specifically to play the VP candidate. Eight years later, Fey’s impression of Palin is still fondly remembered, and the real Governor Palin has even appeared in a cameo. The character was most recently seen in last year’s Christmas episode, when she appeared in a dream sequence with two Hillary Clintons (McKinnon and former cast member Amy Poehler).

2. Will Ferrell as George W. Bush (2000–2002, sporadically since) Throughout George W. Bush’s eight years as president, four actors portrayed him on SNL, but none left such a permanent mark on his perception in popular culture as Will Ferrell. Ferrell portrayed W. as a simple Southern frat boy who just happened to be elected to the highest political office in the country, and that image was adopted by every comedian who impersonated the president from there on out. Ferrell even took the role to Broadway when he starred in the Tony Award-nominated one-man show “You’re Welcome, America: A Final Night with George W. Bush.”

1. Phil Hartman as Bill Clinton (1992–1994) The late Phil Hartman was one of the most gifted performers to grace the Studio 8H stage, and SNL alum Bill Hader calls him the most talented cast member in the show’s 40-year run. Hartman was the show’s go-to impressionist in the late ’80s and early ’90s, playing everybody from Ronald Reagan to

a pre-candidacy Donald Trump to actor and NRA spokesperson Charlton Heston.

But his best portrayal was a two-year run as Clinton, imbuing the then-president with a combination of charm and recklessness that must have inspired Ferrell’s Bush Jr. In one memorable sketch, Hartman’s Clinton stops at a McDonald’s while on a run, and explains his policies to the customers by eating their fries, chicken nuggets, and egg McMuffins—poking fun at President Clinton’s love of fast food. When Hartman left SNL in 1994 for “NewsRadio,” the mantle was taken up by Darrell Hammond, who still plays the role today. I strongly advise any and all fans of comedy to look up his clips online or in the SNL app, as every sketch this character appears in is a bona fide winner.

Here are my picks honorable mentions in no particular order: Jay Pharaoh as Barack Obama, Chris Farley as Newt Gingrich, Darrell Hammond as Dick Cheney, Jason Sudeikis as Mitt Romney, Kristen Wiig as Nancy Pelosi.

Controversy brewing

Yuengling’s public support for Donald Trump inspires boycott ANGELA CHRISTALDI ’17 Managing Editor America’s oldest brewery caused quite a stir when a tweet revealed that the Yuengling brewery of Pottsville, Pa., supported Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

The news broke on Oct. 24, when Trump’s son Eric tweeted, “Thank you to Dick Yuengling for an amazing tour of the oldest brewery in the U.S!” According to Eric Trump, the brewery owner and company president said, “Our guys are behind your father, we need him in there.”

Immediately following Eric Trump’s tweet, Americans on twitter began discussing a boycott of the brand. Billy Penn, a local Philadelphia news outlet, even released a list of alternative beers for people considering the boycott.

“Personally, I am no longer supporting Yuengling after their endorsement of Trump,” said Sara Leonetti, ’17, a lifelong Philadelphia resident. “But I don’t necessarily feel betrayed by anyone who is still buy-

ing Yuengling the way I would by someone voting [for] Trump.”

Others, however, seem more ambivalent about the company’s support of the candidate.

“I don’t think it’s completely fair for people to throw Yuengling under the bus for their political opinions,” said Justin Russell, ’17. “But everyone has their right to use the power of their dollar to influence politics and society.”

Yuengling is not the first brand to voice support of, or disdain for, candidates in this election. Earlier this year, Skittles and Tic Tac USA disavowed the Republican candidate after comments referencing both brands were made by Trump and his son Donald Trump, Jr. Tic Tac USA responded to the Washington Post’s leaked audio of Trump making lewd comments about sexually assaulting women. The brand tweeted, “Tic Tac respects all women. We find the recent state-

ments and behavior [of Trump] completely inappropriate and unacceptable.”

Skittles also made a strong statement after Trump, Jr., tweeted a meme that said, “If I had a bowl of Skittles and told you three would kill you, would you take a handful? That’s our Syrian refugee problem.” A spokeswoman for Wrigley, Skittles’ parent company, replied, saying, “Skittles are candy. Refugees are people. We don’t feel it’s an appropriate analogy. We will respectfully refrain from further commentary as anything we say could be misinterpreted as marketing.”

While some brands have been outspoken about their support of or disdain for the Republican nominee, no major brands have taken public stances on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

According to a story by Fortune, while Clinton may not have explicit endorsement from brands, she does have the support of the CEOs and leaders of several major com-

panies. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and famed investor Warren Buffett have both announced their support of Clinton.

Clinton has also received donations from Apple CEO Tim Cook and Dreamworks Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Reed Hastings, CEO and co-founder of popular streaming service Netflix, has also made public statements about the presidential candidates. He said in an interview with CNN, “Trump would destroy much of what is great about America. It’s important that Trump lose by a landslide to reject what he stands for.”

The practice of brands and business owners speaking out publically about presidential candidate has continued in this election. While their statements have inspired some consumers to reconsider their support for certain companies, it remains to be seen whether these endorsements or denouncements will affect voters’ opinions of the candidates.

Lifestyle

Nov. 2, 2016

14

CHRISTINA CICONTE ’17 Special to The Hawk Attending The Washington Center’s two week academic seminar about the Democratic National Convention (DNC) from July 18 to July 30 allowed me to not only learn about the importance of political conventions, but to learn about the election by being inside the Wells Fargo Center for the DNC. During the first week, we learned about which issues are important to the American people and how the Democratic Party is trying to appeal to voters across the liberal spectrum. During the convention, I was a part of “access control”: Part of my job involved checking credentials of delegates from Georgia and Maryland one day and staying up in the club and suite level the rest of the time. A number of political elites passed by me, from vice-presidential candidate Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and his family, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Katie McGinty, ’85, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and many more.

I was able to talk to my state senators, Senator Chris Michigan State University student Coons and Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, and their (left) and Christina Ciconte, ’17 (right) at the Democratic National staff members, who allowed me to tour the media boxConvention. es with them. Being inside the arena, I was also able to hear the various speeches given by President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, among others, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s nomination acceptance speech. It was truly humbling to be a part of such a historic moment in our country, and witness the first woman to accept the presidential nomination from one of the two major political parties. If Hillary Clinton does win the required electoral votes in November, she will be a case study for political scientists and certainly shatter a 240-year-old glass ceiling.

The Democratic National Convention was everything that I expected: There were protestors, networking opportunities, and patriotic Democrats at every turn. My two-week experience made me appreciate my education at Saint Joseph’s University even more, and helped me to prepare further for a future in politics.

Photos by Christina Ciconte, ’17

ERIN COOPER ’17 Special to The Hawk My experience at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio was incredible. During the first week, I attended seminars at Baldwin Wallace University and learned about different aspects of elections and conventions. These seminars really helped me to prepare for the convention itself. It was great to meet so many students from all over the country and learn about their experiences in politics. The work was inspiring, especially because I was around so many ambitious students.

During the convention, I worked with Talk Media News (TMN), a media service that helps national radio stations find stories for their listeners. In addition to working with their radio team, I wrote my own stories for the network. The team I worked with was very helpful; they even gave us passes to get on the floor of the convention. My expectations for the convention were relatively low because I had no idea what to expect, especially with a candidate as unconventional as Donald Trump. However, I was able to speak with several delegates and journalists about both Trump’s potential candidacy and the upcoming election. It was really interesting to watch the events, listen to the speakers, and take in the crowd’s reactions.

My favorite experience was Gage Huber, ’17 and the last day at the convention: I Erin Cooper, ’17 at the Republican National was able to chat with some radio Convention. hosts, including Pete Hamby (head of Snapchat News’ “Good Luck America”) and my own hero Carl Bernstein.

I was extremely lucky to meet so many amazing people on this trip. It was an honor to work in Media Row right by booths for Snapchat, CNN, Fox, Twitter, Google and so many other well-known outlets. I am grateful for the experience and for the friendships I made, as well as the networking I was able to do, and I am looking forward to attending the next convention.

Temple student (left) and Huber (right) at the RNC. (Photos by Gage Huber, ’17)

Lifestyle

Nov. 2, 2016

15

Wearing your vote Students share their experiences sporting pro-Trump gear on campus KELLY WITTMAN ’17 Hawk Staff There is a new fashion trend spreading this season at Saint Joseph’s University that you will not find on the runway: freedom of political expression.

Students at St. Joe’s are making it clear which candidate has their support come Nov. 8 by wearing their votes. Some supporters of the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, are sporting hats that say, “Make America Great Again,” and pins that read, “Build a Wall.”

Claudia Wert, ’17, wears a “Lock her up” t-shirt on the weekends and accessorizes with a matching

pin in outward support for Trump. The registered Republican also owns over 30 Trump flyers that she hands out in her neighborhood in another public show of support.

At her home in Berks County, Pa., her political affiliation is not only accepted, but celebrated. Wert’s form of political expression, however, is not always on St. Joe’s bestdressed list.

In class, Wert says she receives glares for the Trump pin secured to the pocket of her backpack and has been the recipient of offensive gestures when she wears her t-shirt.

Facial expressions and middle fingers aside, the College Republicans member believes it is her civic duty to exercise her First Amendment rights.

“People are afraid to talk about politics, [let alone] wear it,” Wert said.

According to Wert, the fear of putting political beliefs on display has to do with the lack of an open forum for discussion, debate, and expression.

“I believe that it’s important to openly express my vote because we live in such

a politically correct culture where the truth and our opinions are suppressed,” Wert said.

“We are not free to talk about what makes us great. We are so focused on apologizing, we could lose what America is all about.”

Wert said that she wants Trump supporters to know that they are not alone in their political affiliation, and hopes that openness in supporting a candidate will pave the way to having productive discussions about politics.

“If more students had an open mind and welcomed political discussions without name-calling or conflicts, debates could be led to highlight hot button issues circling the candidates this election,” Wert said.

Marissa Karomfily, ’17, wears her support just as Wert does, though she stills feels the pressure that political correctness has on freedom of expression.

“It makes me less inclined to want to share my own opinion, because I’m not looking to argue,” Karomfily said. “I’m not looking to convince someone that they’re wrong, and I’m not looking for someone to go and try to change my opinion, either.”

The pressure to defend her choice of candidate to her peers is exhausting, according to Karomfily.

“I feel like, generally speaking, if you identify as conservative, you’re more likely to be judged for it,” she said.

Despite the reactions that some may have to her visible support for Trump, Karomfily still sees the value in openly expressing her political views. Registered as an Independent, Karomfily believes in the power of her vote and The First Amendment right.

“I think it’s my obligation as a U.S. citizen to exercise my First Amendment right,” she said. “This is my opportunity to make my opinions heard, and it’s [wrong] to not take advantage of my right to vote or to discredit the millions of people it took to get to this point.”

At times, when it grows tiring to have to explain their visible support for Trump, Wert and Karomfily are sure of one fact: Sometimes, fashion speaks louder than words.

Image courtesy of Creative Commons

The politics of fashion Exploring the scrutinized images of women in power FRANKI RUDNESKY ’18 Hawk Staff According to the Pew Research Center, there are currently at least a dozen female heads of government around the world, and at least 63 nations have had a female head of government or state at one time.

The United States is not among these nations, as there has not yet been a female president. However, the U.S. is currently in the midst of a presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the first female major party nominee for president.

As the first female candidate for a major party, Clinton’s style has been under scrutiny by the media throughout her campaign.

The emphasis on and attention to what a female politician wears is an issue that does not only take place in national elections, but it is also a very relevant issue here in Pennsylvania.

Katie McGinty, ’85, is running to become the first female senator from Pennsylvania. She too has noticed and been affected by the media’s unequal coverage of men and women.

“Presentation and image are critical, but it’s just as important to be able to back up your words with actions and results,” McGinty said. “I think women sometimes have a harder time proving their experience and qualifications, but as women, we can’t let that deter us. Female candidates need to put aside their hesitations and be more confident about what we bring to the table be-

cause we are as qualified and as ready to compete as anyone.”

William K. Greenlee, Philadelphia City Councilman At-Large and Majority Deputy Whip, has also noted the disparity between the coverage of men and women in politics throughout his time as a politician.

“I think women are judged differently,” Greenlee said. “There is too much emphasis on a woman’s looks and not her positions and policies. So many times we’ve heard about Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits and hair, which are not things that should matter.”

Greenlee noted that as a public figure, image always comes into play to a certain extent. However, he believes it is a more significant concern for female politicians.

“It’s easier for men; you put on a suit and get a haircut and you’re alright. I think you do have to put on a certain image,” Greenlee said. “You should judge everyone depending on positions and things that matter rather than what they wear and how they look.”

Public attention to the clothing choices of women in politics is not a new phenomenon. In fact, according to Christine Baeza, assistant teaching professor in the Design and Merchandising Program at Drexel University, fashion has always played a larger role for women in the public eye than for men.

“There is a long and complicated history of women’s dress codes, especially in the

corporate and political world,” Baeza said.

“Women are judged far more than men for what they wear. A look back in history shows evidence of the seemingly impossible balance a woman needs to have with looking too feminine and looking too masculine.”

Baeza said that women have often used fashion to make political statements. For instance, suffragettes removed their corsets and marched in white dresses to symbolize the need for political change.

Clinton’s famed pantsuit can also be considered a fashion statement, one that started in the 1980s. The problem is that female politicians’ fashion statements are sometimes misconstrued.

“In the ’80s, the powersuit had most women dressing like men, since more women were entering the workforce,” Baeza said.

“Fashion is about personal expression, and women in the public eye walk a fine line when it comes to their attire: What is the unspoken message they want to convey and how can that message not be misperceived.”

Could it be that the scrutiny of women in politics could deter many women from pursuing office?

The statistics say “maybe.” According to a study done by Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics, women make up well below half of U.S. Congress, Senate, and House of Representatives.

Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

Ethan Flanagan, ’18, a political science major at St. Joe’s, has noticed the scrutiny of female politicians in the media, especially Hillary Clinton. However, he believes while Clinton’s image has been scrutinized, the coverage of her appearance and policies have been fairly balanced.

“I definitely think there’s a double standard in the media when it comes to covering men and women politicians, especially with Hillary Clinton because she is so visible,” Flanagan said. “It seems to me that mainstream media is so very quick to analyze what she is wearing, whereas with Trump, there’s no real analysis of what he’s wearing.”

Lifestyle

Nov. 2, 2016

16

16

Playlist of the week: Five star-spangled songs to get you in the Election Day spirit LAUREN BOURQUE ’19 Special to The Hawk What better way to get pumped about voting than by listening to some wonderfully inspirational songs about the good ol’ US of A? This playlist features songs from all different eras, and while some are fitting for this election in particular, others are great for any election season.

1. “Donald Trump” by Mac Miller It is pretty obvious as to why this track made it onto the list. “Donald Trump” was the song on Mac’s debut album that launched his career back in 2011. Now with “The Donald” as a presidential candidate, it is interesting to look back at this song. While the lyrics talk about money, girls, and fame, they also tell of the rise of Donald Trump and of Mac’s hope to one day achieve the same level of fame and fortune.

2. “Fortunate Son” by Creedence Clearwater Revival This throwback to the late ’60s is a great song to jam to if you’re trying to stick it to the man. “Fortunate Son” came out in 1969 during the rise of anti-government and anti-war songs. This song’s folk rock tune makes it timeless and easy to sing along to. Even if you are not anti-government, this song is a classic rock hit that anyone can enjoy.

3. “Party in the USA” by Miley Cyrus Another election playlist must-have, this song launched Miley Cyrus’ musical career and became an instant classic to belt out with your friends. It’s a great song to play during the election, or even as a post-election celebratory anthem.

4. “Freedom” by Pharrell When you hear this song, you can’t help but want to get up and shout “freedom” along with Pharrell. This track perfectly meshes poetic lyrics with an upbeat and electric sound, and like “Fortunate Son,” is great to listen to when feeling empowered for change.

5.“Philadelphia Freedom” by Elton John This song is an uplifting, joyous tune that makes people want to get up and dance. Sir Elton John debuted the song back in 1975. While other artists during this time made anti-government and anti-war songs, John wrote this record that portrays his love for the USA. Fun fact: This song was written for John’s friend Billie Jean King who owns the Philadelphia Freedoms tennis team.

Election playlist bonus tracks: “Elected” by Alice Cooper, “Dear Mr. President”

by Pink, “Super Tuesday” by The Shazam, and “Electioneering” by Radiohead.

Elizabeth B. Mitchell, ’19, contributed to this playlist.

Turn up to vote Election Day events to help you get your political party on KATIE WHITE ’17 Lifestyle Editor

Election Night Kick-off Party

Free Beer Election Day

Election Returns Watch Party

Parkway Central Library’s skyline room and roof deck is the setting of the latest election-themed event in the library’s American Presidency Series. There, you can enjoy presidential trivia, red and blue hors d’oeuvres, and other election kick-off entertainment. Tickets are available online for $15 and cover entrance, food, and an open bar.

In case you needed another incentive to vote on Nov. 8, Brauhaus Schmitz restaurant and bar is offering a Traunstein Oktoberfest beer on the house for anyone wearing an “I Voted” sticker. Nothing says “America” quite like celebrating democracy with a free beer.

The party doesn’t have to stop after the polls close. Finish off your Election Day festivities at City Diner with local political group "Philadelphia 3.0"’s Election Returns Watch Party. Watch the number of votes for each candidate roll in and celebrate the end of a long election season.

Where: Parkway Central Library 1901 Vine St, Philadelphia, Pa. When: 5:30 p.m.–8:30 p.m. on Nov. 8

Where: Brauhaus Schmitz 718 South St, Philadelphia, Pa. When: 11:30 p.m.–2 a.m. on Nov. 8

Party Lines Election Night Special

Where: City Diner 521 S. Broad St., Philadelphia, Pa. When: 8 p.m.–11 p.m. on Nov. 8

Election Night Watch Party

If the state of the country has you feeling down, this political variety show hosted by the Good Good Comedy Theatre promises to put some humor back into your Election Day. For a $5 entrance fee, you can expect “songs, bits, sketches, videos, squirt guns, ghosts, and a whole lot of pandering” brought to you by politically savvy comedians.

Ladder 15 Philly’s watch party is perfect for any political party animal. Plans for the night include a U.S. map with 538 shots of beer that are given out after each state is called. You can also look forward to entering a raffle for free with your “I Voted” sticker, and win prizes for predicting the final electoral college tally and senate race outcomes. Tickets cost $20 and include an open bar.

Where: Good Good Comedy Theatre 215 N. 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa. When: 10 p.m.–12 a.m. on Nov. 8

Where: Ladder 15 Philly 1528 Sansom St, Philadelphia, Pa. When: 8 p.m.–11 p.m. on Nov. 8

From Washington, D.C. to Campion and D.B. Candidates’ picks for dining at St. Joe’s KRISTEN ADAMS ’17 Hawk Staff We all know that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have very distinct and unique personalities. We’ve seen their true colors show even more, particularly now that the presidential election is so close.

But where would the presidential candidates eat if they attended Saint Joseph’s University?

Campion Dining Hall: Clinton would wake up early to get to Campion Dining Hall in order to hit up the omelet station. She would request an all-veggie omelet, then have a glass of water and might even bother a Campion worker for a lemon wedge.

Trump would roll out of bed around 11:30 a.m., just in time for the beginning of lunch. He would grab some of the hearty, home-style food: The meatloaf, mashed potatoes, roasted corn, and a piece (or two) of Texas toast. He’d grab two double chocolate chip cookies and a

Coke before sitting down to eat.

Off-campus: After working hard all week, Clinton would treat herself to a nice meal not from Campion. She would take the shuttle from Mandeville and head to Corner Bakery. There, she would order a Caesar salad with grilled chicken and dressing on the side, a side of chicken noodle soup, an unsweetened iced tea, and an oatmeal raisin cookie to go.

Trump would get fed up with Campion pretty quickly. By Wednesday, after yelling at Campion workers both Monday and Tuesday, he would want to go somewhere else to eat. He’d request an Uber to take him through the Wendy’s drive-thru and proceed to order a Baconator with XL French fries, and a vanilla frosty.

A night on the town: Clinton would head to Zavino in Uni-

versity City, where she can dine at lowcost, but also high-value. Here, she’d indulge in some kale salad, and share a slice (or two) of pizza with her daughter, Chelsea. She’d leave a tip for the waiter and head home around 8:30 p.m.

Trump would decide that he deserves a nice dinner in the city. He’d head to the most expensive restaurant in Philly that he can think of: Vetri. He’d begin his four course meal with a sweet onion crepe, truffle fondue, and a glass of Chianti. For his second and third courses, he’d order the duck lasagnetta and roasted lamb with pecorino potatoes. He’d finish off a meal— that no other college student would ever be able to afford—with a chocolate polenta soufflé.

From breakfast in Campion to a meal in the city, both presidential candidates would make the most of all the dining options Hawk Hill has to offer.

Lifestyle

Nov. 2, 2016

17

Election trivia

Little-known facts about the presidential candidates CIARRA BIANCULLI ’17 Assistant Lifestyle Editor You’ve watched them debate and know all about their policies, but there’s more to the presidential candidates than meets the eye. Check out the following fun facts to learn more about this year’s presidential candidates.

Donald Trump:

Hillary Clinton: Clinton has said that she once tried to join the Marines. Before she said “I do” to Bill Clinton in 1975, Hillary Clinton tried to join the Marines. The recruiter would not accept her because of her eyesight and age.

She also won a Grammy Award in 1997.

If writing a book wasn’t enough of an accomplishment, Clinton won a Grammy for the audio version of her book “It Takes A Village.”

Clinton was active in student government. During her senior year at Wellesley College, Hillary Clinton served as the class president.

Gary Johnson:

Trump has his own board game. Although it didn’t gain as much popularity as his campaign has, Donald Trump had a board game called Trump: The Game.

Johnson has climbed Mt. Everest. He reached the summit in 2003, even with a broken leg.

He’s also wary of germs. Trump has said he has major concerns about spreading germs through shaking hands and pressing elevator buttons.

Initially, Johnson ran as a Republican in the 2012 election. He later switched to a Libertarian campaign for the remainder of the 2012 election cycle.

Trump once appeared in “Sabrina the Teenage Witch.” While most of us know Donald Trump from “The Apprentice,” he also had a cameo in a 1998 episode of the Nickelodeon show “Sabrina the Teenage Witch.”

Johnson is the first unmarried candidate since 1884. However, he is currently engaged.

He owns a total of 20 golf courses.

Trump’s golf courses and complexes are She once worked in a fish processing plant. She was employed by an Alaskan fish located around the world. processing plant as one of her summer jobs.

Trump has distinctive birthmarks.

According to his draft registration card, Before setting her sights on the White House, Clinton wanted to head for space. Trump has birthmarks on both of his heels.

Clinton had dreams as a child of someday being an astronaut, even voicing her aspirations to NASA from a young age.

He started a business in college. Johnson began a handyman and hardware company named Big J Enterprises to help cover the cost of his education while he was still in school.

Jill Stein: Stein was the lead singer of a rock band.

During the ’90s, Jill Stein was the leader singer of Somebody’s Sister, a folk-rock band.

She’s also a huge cat lover. Along with politics, Stein has a spot in her heart devoted to cats. Often, she posts on Twitter pictures of her cat climbing all around her and her belongings.

Stein has been arrested twice. While out on the campaign trail in 2012, Jill Stein was arrested twice: The first time was for trespassing, while the second time was for trying to give candy to protesters.

NOW OPEN BOOK YOUR VISIT TODAY | www.fi.edu | 215.448.1200 Locally Presented by:

Lifestyle

18

Nov. 2, 2016

Horoscopes Aries

There’s no debating that you march to the beat of your own drum, Aries. Without feeling the pressure to follow either one of two sides, you’re often praised for your alternative outlook on life. Keep living free no matter what anyone says, and your personal sense of liberty will always win.

Taurus

While you and your friends have had the occasional falling out, there’s no doubting that you are stronger together.

Put extra effort this week into maintaining relationships with those who are closest to you, and you’ll feel more secure in your support system than ever before.

Gemini

Moderate and sensible by nature, you are always striving to keep a level of balance in your life. This week, however, the scales will start to tip more toward chaos. Keep your peaceful energy up, Gemini, and you’ll soon find your life realigning in the middle.

Cancer

Your mood this week is more volatile than an undecided voter: One minute you’re seeing red, and the next you’re feeling completely blue. Keep your head up during these unpredictable times, Cancer. You’ll come to a resolution soon enough, and when you do, it won’t go unnoticed.

Puzzles

Leo

Sagittarius

Virgo

Capricorn

Libra

Aquarius

Scorpio

Pisces

With the building pressures of work and school, you’ve had a hard time keeping up with all of your assignments.

It’s time to make your GPA great again, Leo. If you do your best to focus on your studies this week, there’s no doubt that the payoff will be huge.

Much like a swing state, it may feel like people only value your opinions when it’s relevant to them. Make an effort this week to prove that your viewpoint is just as valuable as everyone else’s. Be assertive when speaking your mind and you’ll never feel left out of the loop again.

You’ve had to be conservative with your spending lately, but this week you will come into some much-needed money! Whether you decide to save it up for a rainy day or be liberal with your purchases, remember that the choice is yours and yours only.

While positivity is normally your strong suit, your cheerful temperament will soon be put to the test. Keep your focus on the pursuit of happiness this week, Scorpio.

Concentrate on taking care of yourself, and your sense of hope for the future will soon return.

Your nerves may be easily fried this week, but there’s no need to put out an attack ad, Sagittarius. Try to keep a level head when dealing with your frustrations. Run a clean campaign, and you’ll eventually resolve all of your problems conflict- and consequence-free.

Fair, balanced, and always in control, you’re often forced to act as a moderator between fighting friends. Try not to let the constant clash go to your head, Capricorn. Stay patient and let any disputes work out on their own—you don’t always need to be the one to keep the peace.

No need for a fact-checker here! Your personal platform is one of absolute honesty. Put your trustworthy nature to good use this week and offer some straightforward advice to someone in need. Keep up the good work, Aquarius, and you’ll earn everyone’s vote as the most reliable friend.

You are never one to hide your true feelings, and this week is no different, Pisces. You have a ton of pride for where you come from, and there’s no better time than now to let it show. Be proud to stand up for what you believe in, and let your flag fly.

Election Word Search

BALLOT, DONALD TRUMP, GOVERNMENT, JILL STEIN, POLITICS, REPUBLICAN, CONSERVATIVE, ELECTION, GREEN PARTY, LIBERAL, POLL, VOTE, DEMOCRAT, GARY JOHNSON, HILLARY CLINTON, LIBERTARIAN, PRESIDENT, WHITE HOUSE

Sports

Nov. 2, 2016

19

From athletes to activists

Do political statements from athletic figures impact society?

NICK MANDARANO ’18 Assistant Sports Editor “We have better candidates for Atlantic-10 Player of the Year than we do for president,” said Saint Joseph’s University men’s basketball Head Coach Phil Martelli.

Whether Martelli was praising his league’s stars or making a dig at the 2016 presidential campaign, a statement like this begs the question: Do people listen or care when a big name in the world of sports makes a major political statement?

In July of 2015, Dennis Rodman, a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, tweeted: “@realDonaldTrump has been a great friend for many years. We don’t need another politician, we need a businessman like Mr. Trump! Trump 2016,” and received over 2,400 retweets and over 2,600 likes.

Despite the amount of people who took the liberty to reemphasize Rodman’s thoughts

among their own Twitter network, there were a large number of people who replied to Rodman sarcastically asking if the “we” in his tweet referred to the people of North Korea, since Rodman has claimed to be friends with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un. Regardless of the amount of people that agreed or disagreed, Rodman’s words were heard.

On the other hand, former Major League Baseball player Curt Schilling was largely ignored. Schilling, who has over 170,000 followers on Twitter, held a Trump rally outside of Boston in October. Bystanders and photos estimate that about 10-15 people attended the rally. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that, next to a city that houses close to 650,000 people, at least 100 would show up just for an opportunity to meet one of the greatest post-season pitch-

ers of all-time, but he struggled to even draw in 15. Schilling, who formerly served as an ESPN baseball analyst, was fired in April for a political statement made on social media about North Carolina’s House Bill 2 law, which prevents transgender people from using the bathroom of the gender with which they identify, after several similar instances in the recent past.

Athletes and coaches have a lot of influence on society, both positively and negatively. When four NBA superstars—LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Caremello Anthony, and Chris Paul—stood up at the last ESPY’s to speak out against gun violence and similar matters—people listened. When Johnny Manziel protested the National Anthem— people listened.

The societal impact of athletes’ actions

are beyond measure, so when they have something to say about the presidential campaign, people are most likely listening.

But are voters influenced?

Trump has been supported by Bobby Knight, Tom Brady and Rex Ryan in addition to Schilling, Rodman and others. On the other hand, Clinton has received support from Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Billie Jean King, Alex Rodriguez, Jason Collins, Abby Wambach and Jason Kidd, among others.

With the election around the corner, there is still a notable amount of undecided voters.

Perhaps a tweet from their childhood heroes would help sway voters.

Images taken from Twitter

Goodbye, superstition

Why the Washington Rule won’t influence the outcome of the 2016 election MARK DE LEON ’17 Assistant Copy As the NFL enters Week 9, one very special team for the election season will not play and instead will have a bye week. Currently 4-3-1, Washington will not play a home game at FedExField anytime close to Election Day, Nov. 8. Sports and election trivia fans alike are disappointed by the consequences of this year’s schedule. Many Americans even believe that the result of the team’s last home game will predict the outcome of the presidential election.

Dubbed the Washington Rule, the superstition states that if Washington wins, the presidential candidate for the party currently holding office will win the election; however, a loss forecasts that the candidate from the challenging party, will win the election instead. For many, it is natural to believe in superstitions, so it was inevitable that someone would use the fervor and passion of following American football to make sense of the future of our country.

In preparing for Washington’s Oct. 30 game against the Tennessee Titans back in 2000, renowned Monday Night Football reporter and in-game statistician Steve Hirdt not only discovered the trend but also the fact that the rule was consistent for the previous 15 elections. After his report aired on national television, the sensation caught on, enticing viewers—Washington fans or not— to this day.

Looking back all the way to 1940, Washington’s victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers coincided with Franklin Delano Roosevelt winning his third term as president. Since then, the Washington Rule has predicted the outcome for 17 out of the past 19 elections.

Surprisingly, the two blunders have only occurred in this current century: in 2004 and in 2012.

Nevertheless, the chaotic and peculiar nature of the 2016 election is reflected in the strange situation Washington now find themselves in the regular season. They were given a bye week just before the election and right after they played as the away team against the Cincinnati Bengals in London’s Wembley Stadium as part of the NFL’s International Series. Therefore, the last home game Washington played was back in Week 7 on Oct. 16, which was 23 days before the presidential election—the largest number of days between the two events in the rule’s history so far. That day, the team won against the Birds themselves: the Philadelphia Eagles, 27-20.

If one were to subscribe to the Washington rule, then the Democratic Party will maintain its place in the White House, with Hillary Clinton winning against Republican Party candidate Donald Trump.

While it is fun to indulge in this phenomenon and be captivated by its 89 percent accuracy rate, no registered voter should be encouraged or discouraged by the outcome of a football game, no matter how engaging and captivating it can be.

It is human nature to find patterns and perceive associations between things that surround us. It is comforting to have some control over this unpredictable universe, and it sure would be a relief to know beforehand exactly how this tumultuous and unprecedented election season will turn out. However, the only defining thing that directly affects the outcome on election day consistently is voter turnout. Take control of your part in the fate of this election and go out to cast your ballot on Tuesday.

Put your faith into your own hands this November, not in someone else’s—especially not in the hands of a national football team.

Kirk Cousins, quarterback for the Washtington team. (Photo courtesy of Creative Commons)

Where they stand

Graphics by Luke Malanga ’20