John Kasich: A Kennesaw State University Town Hall

By THOMAS HARTWELL

Ohio Gov. John Kasich paid a visit to Kennesaw State University, Tuesday for a town hall before the very important Super Tuesday presidential primaries. Kasich has been trailing in the first few primaries, excluding New Hampshire where he placed second.

Kasich began with a short speech, before opening up the floor to questions from the crowd. Members of the audience wasted no time getting down to business with the first question referring to Kasich's lack of attack tactics on the other Republican candidates: How are you going to "stick it to" Trump and the others in the coming elections? Kasich addressed the question in two parts, first addressing his preference for town hall meetings.

"The worst way we can pick a president is in these stupid debates," said Kasich. "I believe [town halls are] the way for you to see somebody's head and somebody's heart."

Then addressing the specific question: "In terms of sticking it to somebody, I ain't gonna do that," said Kasich. "It's time to end all the negative campaigning and all the dirt in politics."

Kasich took the intimate setting as an opportunity to interact with individual audience members, addressing a few with, "Right, sir?" or, "What do you think?" throughout the meeting.

An audience member asks Kasich how he'll "stick it to" other candidates leading into
important primaries at KSU town hall. Photo by Thomas Hartwell

The Republican presidential candidate also took the opportunity to appeal to attendees' pathos, giving several examples of family life and anecdotes of treatment for the drug-addicted and mentally ill in his state, Ohio, as well as telling the mass of KSU students to "live out their purpose" in life and referring to his own thoughts on his purpose as president.

"I don't know if my purpose is to be president," Kasich said. "My purpose is to be out here doing what I think I need to be doing, and we'll see where it ends up."

Kasich addresses a KSU student and listens to his question at
KSU town hall, Tuesday. Photo by Thomas Hartwell

Alright, so the hard news portion is over, now let's get to the part I know you care the most about... my opinion (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

Kasich did well to talk on people's level and try to give some stories with feeling. He joked, he hugged, he took pictures, he even pointed out a little girl early on, calling her beautiful -- the crowd loved it. BUT. He absolutely should be far more aggressive. I don't mean the kind of mindless mudslinging associated with the Trump campaign, but at least tell people why you're a better presidential candidate than Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Carson -- give us something. (You have a chance tonight in the CNN debate...)

There were also times during connections with specific audience members that Kasich appeared to be uncomfortable. Notably, in one interaction, he handed the microphone to a KSU student after asking a fairly vague, seemingly rhetorical question, rendering her utterly "deer in the headlights."

While I think Kasich has the purest of intentions and genuinely wants to try to do good for America, I was not impressed with his rhetoric or his presentation and -- sorry, John -- I think it would be better for the Republican party if he dropped out and backed his favorite rival. 

Bernie Sanders and the people of the Morehouse rally

By THOMAS HARTWELL

I'm a fairly new journalist. I haven't had the experiences that many seasoned field reporters have. I don't have stories and I don't have a crazy interview history. I'm emerging -- budding, if you will -- so covering a presidential campaign event, really covering it, was exhilarating. I can tell that I'm in the right line of work and that Tuesday night was the beginning of my own stories.

More than 4,800 gather to hear Sanders speak at
 Morehouse College, Tuesday. Photo by Thomas Hartwell

Bernie Sanders came to Morehouse College, Tuesday, and so did thousands of supporters. I arrived at 4:30, the event was set to start at 7, and began hunting for parking -- a challenge in the area. It wasn't that there weren't spots available or that there was already overwhelming traffic, but I didn't want to pay at a meter or embarrass myself with an attempt at parallel parking. I asked a couple police officers as I was driving to and fro, but received only a, "We don't know where the event is," before I could even roll my window all the way down. "Well, what about parking?" I said. "Don't know that either," they said. I eventually found a deck at Morehouse School of Medicine and talked a rather friendly parking attendant into letting me "borrow" a reserved spot for a few hours, which probably really meant "park illegally and pay me $5." 

Shortly after getting out of my car, I noticed three women parading down the sidewalk in the direction of Morehouse's main campus, the eldest of the group sporting a tie-dye skirt and matching headband. Rosie Trimmer, as I was introduced to her, was garbed in what I can only describe as "hippie attire" to match her headband and skirt -- a description, I gathered, she would take as a compliment -- and she carried a homemade Bernie sign. The sign read, "4 generations + 4 women + 4 ever + 4 Bernie = '16' election. Vote with your soul!" I took a picture of the trio, wished them well, and took a moment to stand there and think through the night's do's and don'ts, letting my eyes blur before realizing I had no idea where I was supposed to go. Rosie and her group hadn't gotten far, though, and since I assumed they'd know where they were headed, I followed their lead. 

Rosie Trimmer (left), April Gaffney and Tybee Trimmer (right)
support Sanders with signs and attire. Photo by Thomas Hartwell

Turns out, I parked MILES from Morehouse's Forbes Arena, where the rally was to be held, and when I finally got to the check-in line, it too was miles long (it wasn't literally miles, but without exaggeration, it probably stretched 3/4 of a mile). I stood in line for about 20 minutes until volunteers began walking along the sidewalk registering people via their smartphones. I showed them a press pass I had been provided by Kennesaw State University College of Communication and Media, and they sent me to the media entrance. I approached the media check-in table reluctantly -- I was only a lowly student journalist, and I was getting involved with hotshots from the Times, CNN and others. But working from the foundation of a piece of wisdom I have received from many throughout the years, "Look like you know what you're doing and no one asks any questions," I strutted up, gave them my name and said, "I'm with KSU News." I got in. My name was not on the press list, I was added and I was given a Bernie Sanders press pass.

Alexander Meyer, Morehouse College sophomore, prepares for
 Sanders' speech. Photo by Thomas Hartwell

I interviewed students of Morehouse College, local high school students and a 93-year-old Bernie supporter. The atmosphere was electrifying, Sanders' surrogates and his own speech were intense and passionate, but the rhetoric did not excite me as much as the people of the event. The people I talked to were, for the most part well-informed, excited and just as passionate as the candidate they backed. My experience showed me I'm in the right line of work. Being surrounded by thousands of people, snapping pictures left and right, just being amid the chaos gives me energy for my future in journalism.

If you want a hard news story for this event, check it out here.

Sanders arrives at Morehouse College, rallies diverse audience of thousands

By THOMAS HARTWELL

Bernie Sanders speaks to nearly 5,000 at Morehouse College, Tuesday. Photo by Thomas Hartwell

ATLANTA – Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders paid a visit to Morehouse College, Tuesday, drawing a millennial-dominated crowd of nearly 5,000.

Sanders has run a campaign on a foundation of racial, ethnic and socio-economic equality in the 2016 presidential race. His speeches often revolve around the control of wealth in America and the discrepancy in the ownership of that wealth. The rhetoric at the Morehouse rally did not stray from that, and Sanders received energetic support from the audience.

 “We need an economy for all of us,” said Sanders. “Not just the 1 percent.”

Sanders also spoke to his growth in popularity and polls over the course of the 2016 presidential campaign. He cited several states where he either won or is winning according to polls and what those numbers looked like at the beginning of the campaign season, namely in Iowa and New Hampshire.

“We started in Georgia way way way down,” said Sanders. “And you know what? I think we’re going to win right here.”

Several surrogates also spoke on Sanders’ behalf, including rapper and Morehouse alumnus, Killer Mike, who gave an impassioned speech on Sanders’ stance on racial equality. After speaking, Killer Mike, whose real name is Michael Render, spoke candidly about the difference in Clinton and Sanders’ equality policies.

Rapper "Killer Mike" speaks on behalf of Bernie Sanders in preparation for Sanders' speech. Photo by Thomas Hartwell

 “Bernie Sanders’ policy advances everyone now. Hillary Clinton’s policy is, ‘Hold up and wait,’” said Render. “Bernie Sanders takes donations of $30 from working-class folks. Hillary Clinton takes millions of dollars from special interests. Bernie Sanders is interested in restoring regulations that will help us all, Hillary Clinton is interested in co-oping and doing more corporate things that are harmful for the worker class.”

Millennial rally attendees energized the atmosphere and said they felt as if Sanders’ policies recognized and valued the needs of young or less fortunate subcultures of voters, such as college students and ethnic minorities, and focused on a government “for the people.”

“Bernie is the only candidate that’s really supported primarily by the people,” said Morehouse College sophomore, Alexander Meyer. “He’s the candidate that has the most integrity, he’s the most progressive candidate, the candidate that actually wants forward change in our country without either keeping a status quo or launching us backwards into regression, and that’s why I support Bernie Sanders.”

Sanders has steadily gained popularity over the course of the 2016 presidential campaign, surprising many, both with his closing poll gaps on Hillary Clinton and, as especially noted in Iowa, with his ability to mobilize and excite a young voter audience.

“I think it’s important for young people to get involved, because this is going to be their future,” said 16-year-old Sanders supporter, Caragan Thiel.

Caragan Thiel and her mother, Tonya Thiel, brandish their Bernie buttons in wait for the
beginning of the Atlanta rally. Photo by Thomas Hartwell

Even though she and others her age will not be able to vote in the 2016 election, Thiel said they should still be paying close attention.

 “Legislative policy that’s passed right now and foreign policy and things that go on in this country that happen now are going to affect us later,” said Thiel.

While Sanders is considered by many the owner of the millennial vote, he rallied the support of voters young and old under Morehouse’s Forbes Arena lights – some voters older than others. 93-year-old Charlene Coburn dismissed the idea that Sanders and older voters don’t see eye to eye.

“I’m for the good of the people – whoever can do and change some of the things we need corrected now,” said Coburn. “Experience is another factor. Sanders has been in the federal avenue, he seems to be a rather level-headed person, and he wants to improve and do better for everyone concerned. We need someone who is sincere, who can walk the walk and talk the talk.”

Sanders’ visit to Morehouse College comes before an important two weeks for presidential hopefuls. He moves to Nevada in coming days ahead of Saturday’s caucuses, according to his campaign’s Facebook schedule, and is expected to campaign heavily in South Carolina soon after.

The Nevada and (especially) South Carolina effect

From PRSSA

By THOMAS HARTWELL

My predictions have begun to go awry. Nevada and South Carolina -- for Democrats and Republicans respectively -- took me by surprise and have forced me to come to terms with what might be a Trump Republican nominee.

Let's start with Nevada, because there were far fewer surprises. Over the course of a handful of weeks, Bernie Sanders closed a substantial poll gap on Hillary Clinton in Nevada. While Clinton still took Nevada by a margin of about 5 percent, Sanders showed that he can surprise and change minds in the end days before polling. This could help the Sanders campaign salvage some of the expected losses in South Carolina, where Clinton is heavily favored. Sanders' win of the Latino vote in Nevada surprised many, including myself, and it bodes well for him going into Super Tuesday, but in a South Carolina Democratic primary where up to 55 percent of voters are black, Sanders will need to do some pretty impressive campaigning over the next week. Right now, Clinton is showing 57 percent to Bernie's 32 in South Carolina polls.

All this being said, Bernie isn't out of the race yet. The delegates between the two candidates are split pretty evenly. If Sanders can do well on Super Tuesday, it will be huge for him. Where Sanders is hurting is in the super delegate pledges -- he has secured only 19 to Hillary's 451 of the super delegates.

Now, the South Carolina Republican primary had some twists and turns -- I went to bed thinking I knew what the outcome was and woke up to new results. Trump won the state by 10 percent and took all 50 delegates, which was an enormous win and destroyed my prediction credibility. To my credit, though, when I predicted a Cruz win in South Carolina earlier this campaign season, he led in the evangelical arena AND he was favored to win in the state. But, not to my credit, Cruz didn't just lose, he placed third (that was the result I woke up to). Everything changes from my original predictions from here. Rubio beat Cruz in South Carolina and, even if only by 0.2 percent, this is a great sign for Rubio and a not so great one for Cruz. Cruz is being absolutely pounded for running what the other candidates are calling a dishonest campaign, and this amount of negative attention is catapulting Rubio into the Republican spotlight as the most able Republican to beat Trump. I also expect him to pick up a good amount of Bush money and support after Bush's campaign ended Saturday. Carson and Kasich have looked to Super Tuesday and only have a fool's hope to stay in the race after then.

So, from here, this is my prediction:

Democrats: Hillary wins South Carolina and most of the states on Super Tuesday. She goes on to win the Democratic nomination.

Republicans: Trump wins Nevada by his normal 10 percent-ish margin, Rubio and Cruz vie for second, but Rubio pulls it out -- this time by around 3 percent. Carson comes in last, and quite possibly drops before Super Tuesday if the numbers are low enough. Trump does well on Super Tuesday because of the split between Rubio and Cruz for second, BUT HERE'S THE THING: My prediction is also that Trump can't get a majority of the delegates and the Republican nomination goes to a convention. (Pretty please, America)

Google algorithm creator to retire

By THOMAS HARTWELL

Amit Singhal, the mind behind Google's search algorithm, is set to retire at the end of February. Singhal says that he wants to spend more time with his family and, as any good "rich guy" should, pursue philanthropic endeavors (article here). He will be replaced by the creator of Google's RankBrain, John Giannandrea.

The news of Singhal's retirement has sparked discussion, and in some cases sheer terror, on where Google might be headed without him. Many took to Twitter to express their melancholy and wish Singhal well, but others condemned Google to failure without him. While simply the statement "Google is doomed to fail" is ridiculous to me, I do realize that fear, in the face of change in a company as large and influential as Google, is normal. Let me tell you why Google is going to be fine, though. 

RankBrain, another kind of SEO and almost "jumbled search decryption" engine developed by Google is going to thrive. The technology, run by Giannandrea, will transition to 100 percent artificial intelligence in "guessing" what search words are searching for. Amazingly, the RankBrain technology will be able to appropriately replace the loss of a Google pioneer like Singhal (or the 1 percent that was still not AI) with what is being called a "gut feeling" like a human's in guessing what a person might be searching for on Google, according to Greg Corrado, a senior research assistant at Google. 

Now, yes, Google's stock did fall after the SEO mastermind's announcement, but no one expert has cited his retirement as the sole reason for the 4.03 percent drop in February 2016. As things at Google stabilize and consumers and stock holders realize that the end isn't in fact nigh, those numbers will climb again. Think about it, what competition does Google have? Bing? Yahoo? Nope. I'm sure Singhal will be sorely missed, but Google will be just fine.

Who won the debate? Dem edition

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The Democratic debate on Feb. 11 was an exciting one. The decidedly less divided and less aggressive Democratic candidates agreed on most topics, but had very different rhetoric and solutions. Unlike in the year's Republican debates, a lack of outright shouting at each other and with only a couple candidates on stage, Hillary and Bernie had plenty of time to talk through the issues.

BERNIE
Bernie did well at the debate Thursday, opening with the issues he has highlighted as the most pressing domestically: Social and racial inequality, financial stability, healthcare for all and, of course, Wall Street speculation.

Sanders had a few well-liked quotes and strong statements that might be especially important since the next stop is South Carolina -- a state almost decided by the black vote. In discussion of police and community relations, a topic that has proved especially hot-button for many in light of the many unarmed black men killed by police lately, Bernie called for the "demilitarization of local police departments" as well as a diversification of those departments to ensure that they "look like the community they are serving." His focus on race inequality continued with an answer to his critics' one-issue candidate attack. The economy that he wants to create, he said, "which is already paid for" by his "tax Wall Street speculation" is for those who are less fortunate financially, which is why he continues and will continue to address it. It would "keep children off of street corners." His strongest racial inequality statement, though, came when he compared the amount of white versus black people who have been jailed for marijuana use. The use between the races is almost equal, he said, but the incarceration rate is 4 times higher for blacks. He was smart to include this statement going into a very important primary.

Sanders also came out strong on immigration. He received roaring audience support after saying that the U.S. people must "stand up to the Trumps of the world who are trying to divide us up." Sanders supported Obama's use of executive orders on the issue, but said he would go even further -- a statement that also received roaring support. (It was at this point that I think Hillary tried to grab a little of that support by throwing in a little "me too"-type statement). A path to citizenship, said Bernie, is essential to bringing families and citizens together, not dividing them up.

Bernie didn't impress on foreign policy, again. He doesn't seem incredibly bothered by the critics on this issue, though. He allowed that Russia and Syria should be taken seriously, but sort of pushed them to the side saying, for example, that the U.S. should try to make nice with Putin, but not let him "get away" with anything. Also, his stage presence still is not that of Hillary Clinton who, for example, has experience debating on these kinds of fronts. A strong and impassioned overall performance, but a performance poked full of holes by Clinton. 8/10.

HILLARY
Hillary struck a few blows to Bernie's campaign efforts and debate performances, trying to shake the foundation on which he has built his rapidly growing campaign. She spoke first about the numbers not adding up in reference to Bernie's economic, education and healthcare plans. While she agreed with several of the ideas, she accused Bernie of having little foresight experience enough to speak with any ethos on the subject. Clinton gave the audience a call to action on the two varying economic plans: "Vet both of our proposals."

Hillary's proposals seemed more prepared and actionable than Bernie's, and she certainly got into the nitty-gritty of those topics, which did well for her. Both Sanders and Clinton put a price tag on a couple of their ideas (both $100 billion), but Clinton challenged Sanders on the gathering of his proposed funds. Sanders' ideas pivot of governors making monetary commitments that he suggests, and "I'm not convinced" that would happen, said Clinton.

Where Bernie lacked, Clinton was strong as well -- foreign policy. Hillary's ability to expand from years of experience as well as her own interest particularly in foreign policy allowed for an expansion beyond what Sanders could offer. She spoke eloquently on domestic terrorism, ISIS, online defense and local, state and federal law enforcement. There were times, however, that debate viewers' eyes may have glazed over. It's important in a debate to back up claims, but going too far into detail or focusing on one topic for too long has the potential to lose attention from viewers. Clinton's expansion also may have been taken as "show-offy" at times.

I think where Hillary lacked was in her attempts to cast off doubts of trust in her. The 'Yeah, I have Super PACs, but the majority of my donors are small' message she brought prompted my answer: "The majority are small donors, because 2 people gave you millions." She also seemed to repeat words that had come out of Sander's mouth seconds before -- a tactic that seemed acceptable to audience members, but didn't get past me. Stronger policy speech paired with a more confident stage presence won Hillary this debate. 9/10.

The New Hampshire effect

From New Hampshire public radio

By THOMAS HARTWELL

More records were broken Tuesday when the presidential candidates made their way to New Hampshire. While the Democrat's voter record was not broken, they contributed to the overall high voter turnout of 538,094, edging out the 2008 total voter turnout by around 11,000 ballots cast. The Republican voter turnout shattered previous records; 284, 120 voters cast ballots -- an increase of nearly 12,000 on the Republican side alone over the previous record-setting election (248,475).

There were a number of surprises in New Hampshire. Most shocking to me was Kasich's taking second place and receiving almost 16 percent of the Republican vote. Kasich came off of a debate performance where he looked more comfortable than previously and, apparently, where he impressed potential voters. I was surprised to see this large of a jump in his numbers, even while refusing to use negative ads against the other candidates -- a tactic which has proven very successful in New Hampshire in the past. Kasich needed this revitalization to his campaign after a not-so-strong debate performance on January 28 and a sheer beat down in the Iowa caucuses.

The amount of votes that Trump received was staggering to me, too. I knew going in that he was likely to win New Hampshire, as up to 34 percent of New Hampshire voters register as Independent and are, therefore, more likely to vote away from the "politician choices." What I was not prepared for was Trump's capturing of more than a third of New Hampshire (35 percent). Trump received 10 delegates to the next nearest candidate's four, so it was quite a victory for him... *sigh*

More surprises: Rubio dropped into fifth place, below Bush, who previously received only 3 percent of the vote in Iowa. Bush, like Kasich, desperately needed this attention from voters, but unlike Kasich, has remained extremely positive about his campaign -- easy to do when you have the amount of financial support he does, I guess. Rubio hasn't been doing so hot lately. He's been called "robotic" and "too rehearsed" after, in a couple cases, he has repeated almost exactly the same words several times in speeches. Rubio said it himself, he didn't do well when it mattered leading up to New Hampshire. Cruz did well to fly under the radar and focus his energy on South Carolina, amid some accusations of illegal campaign activity, taking third. I expect him to win there, as he has captured the evangelical vote for the most part. Christie and Fiorina did not receive enough support to justify continuing their campaigns, and as expected suspended them in the following days. If Carson has another performance like that of the 2 percent he earned in New Hampshire, he could be next.

In short, the Republicans' race could turn into a 2-person one. If Cruz does as well as many expect in South Carolina, he and the Trumpster could simply be too far out in front to catch.

As far as the Democratic vote goes... well, what'd I tell you? Bernie received a whopping 60 percent of the vote to Hillary's 38. This is due, mostly, to the state's large number of Independents (Bernie is registered Independent as a Vermont senator). Bernie received 15 delegates to Hillary's 9, but the two are tied going forward, as six out of eight of the "super delegates" have declared for Clinton. I expect that, in South Carolina, Sanders will not be able to overcome the large discrepancy in the African-American vote and will lose, potentially big, to Clinton.

Primary predictions: The Iowa effect and the race to come

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The Iowa caucuses shattered overall attendance records, brought record numbers of first-time caucus-goers and surprised even the most seasoned political analysts and reporters. Trump, contrary to what entrance polls predicted, fell first-loser to Ted Cruz, who finished up 3.3 percent and one delegate on Trump, according to the Associated Press. Followers and critics of both the Trump and Cruz campaigns could see what a large difference there was in the ground games -- something that is critically important to an Iowa caucus win. So Cruz's ground game pulled it out for him, and this win will be critical to Cruz's success in future primaries. Now that voters, especially the undecideds, see that Cruz actually can win a nomination, we could see a shift in attitudes to his advantage.

Oh, and by the way, Trump's second-place finish prompted many -- including myself -- to reference an old tweet of his:

Anyway...

The Cruz win was not the most surprising happening at the caucuses. Sen. Marco Rubio, following a strong debate performance, came in a strong third place, trailing Trump by only 1.2 percent of the vote.

What does this all mean for the upcoming primaries, though? Well, I'll tell you.

A win for any Republican candidate at this stage means plenty of media attention and maybe some spotlight taken off Trump, which is good for all of us. Following the January 28 debate and directly after the Iowa caucuses, though, I thought I knew what was to come in the next primaries. But since then, a not-so-great debate performance by Rubio and continued ridicule for the "voter violation scandal" and the "stealing of Ben Carson's votes" for Cruz have changed my projections. Here they are (for three states):

Trump takes New Hampshire, Cruz takes South Carolina (BARELY) and Rubio takes Nevada.

As far as the Democrats, where do I begin? The caucuses left viewers at the edge of their seats until the early morning hours, until finally Clinton claimed a 0.3 percent win over Sanders.

Clinton, I predict will remain about the same in popularity for the rest of the campaign season -- she has a pretty dedicated following. I will say, though, those who are undecided, I thoroughly expect to start siding with "The Bern." New Hampshire is absolutely going to be Bernie's time, but look out for him in the later states also.

Campaign narratives and candidate success

By THOMAS HARTWELL

A narrative not only makes for a more interesting story and, in turn, campaign season, but also can win a candidate a state, or even a general election. There have been more than a few surprising narratives driving the candidates' campaigns already this season, and I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear me say that I will, again, be mentioning the Trump (I'm sorry, but as one of my professors once said, "He's the gift that keeps on giving"). The other not-so-surprising choice for a narrative-rich campaigner, I think, is easily Sanders.

I'll start with Trump and just get it out of the way.

Trump has capitalized on two things: fear and frustration with Washington. Trump has been unapologetically blunt, crass and, at times, down-right rude. He can get away with this, and even continue to climb in the polls, because his narrative is that he is new -- he's a successful business man, not a politician, and he swears to use his hard bargaining, his CEO know-how and his tell-it-like-it-is-edness to bring his enemy to their knees and to "Make America great again." How, you ask? "Well, first things first, let's get me elected." People go for that. Partly because of Trump's story telling -- "I'm a successful business man who, like you, is fed up with Washington" -- and partly because his followers just want to see what his specific plans are finally.

Sanders tells a similar story of being fed up, but his story is a little more history and policy-based. Sanders tells us that he has been in politics since the '70s, building trust with listeners. He, like Trump, acknowledges the calls for change, but addresses the change with more specific answers that might be harder for some followers to process than a general, "It's gonna be HUGE." His largest success, though has been embodying the "little guy" who takes on the enormous establishment that is lobby groups and Super PACs. Distrust of cookie-cutter politicians makes Washington the antagonist in both of these candidates' cases and, of course, makes themselves the protagonist.