2016 Presidential Election prepared by the Korean American Civic Empowerment (KACE)
Key Issues of 2016 • Economy • Values • Same‐sex marriage • Federal funding of Planned Parenthood (pro‐choice vs. pro‐life)
• Immigration (Hispanic) • Gun Control (2nd Amendment) • Racial Relations • Foreign Policy
1
Election Process • Primary & Caucus
• Presidential Debate
• 2/1 Iowa Caucus • 2/9 New Hampshire Primary • 3/1 Super Tuesday
• National Convention • RNC: 7/18‐21, Cleveland, OH • DNC: 7/25‐28, Philadelphia, PA
• 9/26 in Dayton, OH • 10/9 in St. Louis, MO • 10/19 in Las Vegas, NV
• General Election • Tuesday, November 8
• Meeting of Electors • Monday, December 19
• Inauguration • Friday, January 20, 2017
Primary & Caucus Schedule 2/1: Iowa Caucus (R: 30, D: 52) 2/9: New Hampshire Primary (R: 23, D: 32) 2/20: Nevada Democratic Caucus (43), South Carolina Republican Primary (50) 2/23: Nevada Republican Caucus (30) 2/27: South Carolina Democratic Primary (59) 3/1: Super Tuesday (R: 661, D: 1015) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • *date pending
Alabama (primary) Arkansas (primary) Colorado (caucus) Georgia (primary) Minnesota (caucus) Oklahoma (primary) Tennessee (primary) Texas (primary) Virginia (primary) American Samoa (Democratic caucus) North Dakota (Republican caucus) Wyoming (Republican caucus) Massachusetts (primary)* Vermont (primary)*
3/5: Kansas Caucus, Louisiana Primary (R: 109, D: 125) • •
Nebraska Democratic caucus Kentucky & Maine Republican caucuses
3/6: Maine Democratic caucus, Puerto Rico Republican caucus (R: 23, D: 30) 3/8: Michigan, Mississippi (primary) (R: 150, D: 206) • • •
Democrats Abroad primary Hawaii Republican caucus Idaho Republican primary
3/15: Florida, Mizzouri, North Carolina, Ohio (primary) (R: 367, D: 792) 3/22: Arizona primary, Utah Caucus (R: 107, D: 141) • •
Idaho Democratic caucus American Samoa Republican territorial convention
3/26: Alaska, Hawaii, Washington Democratic caucuses (169) 4/5: Wisconsin primary* (R: 42, D: 96) 4/19: New York primary (R: 95, D: 291) 4/26: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island (primary) (R: 144, D: 403) •
Pennsylvania primary*
5/3: Indiana primary (R: 57, D: 92) 5/7: Guam Democratic primary (7) 5/10: West Virginia primary (R: 34, D: 37) 5/17: Oregon primary (R: 28, D: 134) •
Kentucky Democratic primary
6/5: Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands Democratic primaries (67) 6/7: California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota (primary) (R: 303, D: 807) •
North Dakota Democratic caucus
6/14: District of Columbia primary (R: 19, D: 20) Total Delegates: 2,472 (R), 4,709 (D)
2
Process: Presidential Debates • Once the candidate for each party has been nominated, national presidential (and VP) debates will take place • Presidential Debates • Tuesday, September 26 in Dayton, OH • Sunday, October 9 in St. Louis, MO • Wednesday, October 19 in Las Vegas, NV
• Vice Presidential Debate • Tuesday, October 4 in Farmville, VA
General Election • November 8th, 2016 • Electoral Votes: 538 total • Varies by state, proportional to population = # of Representatives + 2 • Each state winner‐take‐all • Except Nebraska (5) and Maine (4) where votes are split by district
• First to claim 270 wins • Key States: CA, TX, NY, FL, PA, IL, OH • Battleground States: FL, OH, IA, CO, NV
5
2016 Caucus & Primary Schedule Caucuses (14 states and 3 American Territories)
Primaries (39 states and 2 American Territories)
2/1: Iowa
2/9: New Hampshire
2/20: Nevada (D) Washington (R)
2/27: South Carolina (D)
2/23: Nevada (R) 3/1: Colorado Minnesota North Dakota (R) American Samoa (D) Wyoming (R) 3/5: Kansas Kentucky (R) Maine (R) Nebraska (D) 3/6: Maine (D) 3/8: Hawaii (R) 3/12: Northern Marianas (D) Virgin Islands (R) 3/15: Northern Marianas (R) 3/22: Idaho (D) Utah 3/26: Alaska (D) Hawaii (D) Washington (D) 4/9: Wyoming (D) 6/5: Puerto Rico (D) Virgin Islands (D) 6/7: North Dakota (D) TBA: Alaska (R) • •
Democratic caucus only: NE, ME, ID, American Samoa Republican caucus only: WY, KY, Virgin Islands
3/1: Alabama Arkansas Georgia Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Virginia Massachusetts* Vermont* 3/5: Louisiana 3/6: Puerto Rico (R) 3/8: Idaho Michigan Mississippi 3/10: Nebraska 3/15: Florida Illinois Missouri North Carolina Ohio 3/22: Arizona 4/5: Wisconsin* 4/19: New York 4/26: Connecticut Delaware Maryland Rhode Island Pennsylvania* 5/3: Indiana 5/7: Guam (D) 5/10: West Virginia 5/17: Oregon Kentucky (D) 6/7: California Montana New Jersey New Mexico 6/14: District of Columbia • •
Democratic primary only: KY, Guam Republican primary only: ID, Puerto Rico
Korean American Civic Empowerment (KACE)
2008 General Election
Senate
House
Source: New York Times
Korean American Civic Empowerment (KACE)
2012 General Election
Senate
House
Source: New York Times
Korean American Civic Empowerment (KACE)
2014 Midterm Result: Gubernatorial
2014 Midterm Result: Senate
2014 Midterm Result: House of Representatives
For Republicans, Mounting Fears of Lasting Split By PATRICK HEALY and JONATHAN MARTIN
JAN. 9, 2016
The Republican Party is facing a historic split over its fundamental principles and identity, as its once powerful establishment grapples with an eruption of class tensions, ethnic resentments and mistrust among working class conservatives who are demanding a presidential nominee who represents their interests. At family dinners and New Year’s parties, in conference calls and at private lunches, longtime Republicans are expressing a growing fear that the coming election could be shattering for the party, or reshape it in ways that leave it unrecognizable. While warring party factions usually reconcile after brutal nomination fights, this race feels different, according to interviews with more than 50 Republican leaders, activists, donors and voters, from both elite circles and the grass roots. Never have so many voters been attracted to Republican candidates like Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who are challenging core party beliefs on the economy and national security and new goals like winning over Hispanics through immigration reform. Rank-and-file conservatives, after decades of deferring to party elites, are trying to stage what is effectively a people’s coup by selecting a standard-bearer who is not the preferred candidate of wealthy donors and elected officials. And many of those traditional power brokers, in turn, are deeply uncomfortable and even hostile to Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz: Between them, the leading candidates do not have the backing of a single senator or governor. “I haven’t seen this large of a division in my career,” said Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican first elected to Congress in 1982. “You probably have to go back to Ford versus Reagan in 1976. But that was only two people.” The issues animating grassroots voters — opposition to immigration, worries about wages and discomfort with America’s fast changing demographics — are diverging from and at times colliding with the Republican establishment’s interests in free trade, lower taxes, less regulation and openness to immigration. The fractures could help a Democrat win the White House if Republicans do not ultimately find ways to unite, as one candidate, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, warned last week.
The divide was evident at a recent Greenville, S.C., gathering of bankers and lawyers, reliable Republicans who shared tea and pastries and their growing anxieties about where their party is going. In a meeting room near the wooded shore of Furman Lake, the group of mostly older white men expressed concern that their party was fracturing over free trade, immigration and Wall Street. And they worried that their candidates — mainstream conservatives like Jeb Bush — were losing. “It’s all really hard to believe that decades of Republican ideas are at risk,” said Barry Wynn, a prominent Bush donor at the meeting. The strains on Republicanism are driven home by scenes like the 1,500 people who waited two hours in 10 degree weather on Tuesday night to see Mr. Trump campaign in Claremont, N.H. And the 700 who jammed the student center of an Iowa Christian college the same evening to hear Mr. Cruz. These crowds were full of lunch-bucket conservatives who expressed frustration with the Republican gentry. “The Republican Party has never done anything for the working man like me, even though we’ve voted Republican for years,” said Leo Martin, a 62yearold machinist from Newport, N.H., who attended Mr. Trump’s Claremont rally. “This election is the first in my life where we can change what it means to be a Republican.” This anger has transformed the quadrennial exercise of picking a Republican nominee into a referendum on the future of one of the country’s two enduring political parties. Patrick J. Buchanan, a Nixon and Reagan adviser who ran for the Republican nomination in 1992 and 1996 by stressing the economic and cultural concerns of working-class Americans, said these voters were roiling the party because they had “suffered long enough.” Mr. Buchanan cited years of job losses and wage stagnation that he blamed on free-trade deals and cheap labor from illegal immigrants, as well as hardships from foreign wars that have hit families whose children enlisted in hopes of better lives. “The chickens have come home to roost,” Mr. Buchanan said. “Putting the party back together again will be very hard after this nomination race. I think the party is going to shift against trade and interventionism, and become more nationalist and tribal and more about protecting the border.” Anger and alienation have been simmering in Republican ranks since the end of the George W. Bush administration, at first over policy and then more acutely over how the party should respond to the country’s changing demography. While party leaders like Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina say Republicans are in a “demographic death spiral” and will not survive unless they start
appealing to Hispanics and young people, many voters see such statements as a capitulation. They hunger for an unapologetic brand of conservatism that would confront rather than acquiesce to the political establishment — sentiments that have been amplified by conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and commentators like Ann Coulter, whose verbal broadsides influence the party’s agenda. “All the things the voters want have been shoved off to sidelines by Republican leaders,” said Laura Ingraham, a talk-show host who was a force behind the primary election defeat of Eric Cantor, then the House majority leader, in 2014. “And the voters finally have a couple of people here who are saying this table has to be turned over.” The splits within the party would be difficult to heal no matter the nominee. If an establishment candidate wins the nomination, the highly energized voters backing Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz may revolt; about two-thirds of Trump supporters would vote for him as a third-party candidate, according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll last month — a possibility that could help the Democratic nominee. If Mr. Cruz is nominated, he will have to win over party leaders while not appearing to be selling out to his antiestablishment supporters. A Fox News poll released on Friday found that 66 percent of Cruz supporters in Iowa felt “betrayed” by politicians in their party. If party leaders backed Mr. Trump, they would have to conduct campaigns in parallel universes, supporting a candidate who has said he wants to deport illegal immigrants en masse and temporarily bar Muslims from the country, while simultaneously trying to diversify their predominantly white male base. Republican congressional leaders last week asked Gov. Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina, the daughter of Indian immigrants, to deliver the party’s response to the State of the Union speech this week, and invited King Abdullah II of Jordan, perhaps America’s closest ally in the Arab world, to address a joint session of Congress. “I know Republicans who will support Hillary if Trump or Cruz is the nominee, no question,” Dick Thornburgh, an attorney general under President George Bush and a former Pennsylvania governor, said of Hillary Clinton. “Trump, especially, would split the party. But many will fall in line, seeing no choice.” Mr. McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, and Mr. Graham, who was a presidential candidate until last month, said they would honor the will of the voters and support any eventual nominee. But Mr. Graham said the severity and impact of the party split would ultimately depend on whether a Republican won the presidency. “If Trump or Cruz wins the White House, then my side of the party has to reevaluate who we are, what we stand for, and I’d be willing to do that,” Mr.
Graham said. “But if Trump or Cruz loses the presidency, would their supporters reevaluate their views on immigration and other issues that would grow the party? If they do that, we can come back together. If they don’t, the party probably splits in a permanent way.” Other Republicans said they believed that Mr. Cruz, if he won the nomination, would be similar to the archconservative Barry Goldwater, who was nominated in 1964, and that the party would survive the experience. The presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, who has written biographies of some of the 20th century’s leading Republicans, said a nomination of Mr. Trump would represent “a hostile takeover” of the party, and make it more difficult for old-guard party leaders to suppress the passions of a more hardcore, anti-immigration, angry base. “The nativists aren’t going away,” Mr. Smith said. “They might, if anything, become more feverish.” Some political leaders, eyeing the Republican split, are sensing opportunity. Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire media executive and former New York mayor, was intrigued enough by the prospect of Mr. Trump’s becoming the Republican standard-bearer that he commissioned a poll last month testing how he would fare against Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, according to two sources close to Mr. Bloomberg. But he has often very publicly flirted with a run, savored the attention, then announced that he would not pursue the candidacy. Whatever Mr. Bloomberg decides, the election so far has been upended by voters who live far from his world and, for the first time in years, feel as if their voices are being heard. Dave Conger, 60, a salesman who showed up at a Cruz campaign stop last week with a Cruz pin on his chest, said he had worked to elect both President George W. Bush and his father, but “was told a lot of things and nothing ever happened.” He added, “This time I’m actually hearing somebody who’s telling me the truth; they’re actually going to go in and do something they say they’re going to do.” Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.
A version of this article appears in print on January 10, 2016, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: For Republicans, Fears of a Lasting Split as Class Divisions Erupt . © 2016 The New York Times Company
AS I A
Apology Isn't Justice for Korea's 'Comfort Women'
D E C 28, 2015 5: 30 P M E S T
By Noah Feldman
a A
At long last, Korea's “comfort women” are getting a real apology from Japan's government for being forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese army during World War II. But the moment is bittersweet, and not just because it’s taken 70 years. The apology comes not out of a change in Japanese sentiment, but from a change in geopolitics namely, the rise of China and the increasing need for Japan and South Korea to cooperate on mutual defense. And it comes at the price of a promise by the South Korean government not to criticize Japan over the issue again a trade of moral claims for compensation and finality. The saga of the Japanese nonapology has had many twists and turns, demonstrating that in the contemporary political cultures of both Japan and Korea, apologies aren’t mere formalities but are laden with symbolic significance. A muted 1993 apology was accompanied by compensation from private donors and marked a refusal by Japan’s government to acknowledge its role in the sexual enslavement. Koreans got the point, and some women refused to take money from the fund. The question of state responsibility has remained a sore point. A South Korean historian who has written about the role of private entrepreneurs in enslaving women during the war has been condemned by survivors who say she is minimizing the Japanese government’s guilt. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a strong nationalist, isn’t naturally inclined to apologize for Japan’s wartime atrocities. In the past, he’s angered Chinese and Koreans by visiting the controversial Yasukuni shrine, which honors Japan's war dead, including convicted war
criminals. What motivates Abe is the quest to improve Japan’s national security. China’s military expansionism is the main cause. Almost equally important is an accompanying perception that the U.S. may not be the strong protector it has traditionally been. Would the U.S. go to war to defend Taiwan from China? If the answer is no, then why would the U.S. go to war to protect Japan or South Korea? If there’s doubt about the U.S. commitment, Japan and Korea need each other. The Pacific security arrangement is often described as a “hub and spokes” model, with the U.S. at the center. Abe is setting out to strengthen the ties between the spokes because he recognizes that the hub is not as willing a gravitational force as it once was. In this increasingly uncertain Cool War environment, the perception of JapaneseKorean solidarity is an important aspect of Abe’s program. It’s why he was willing to pay the political price at home of an apology to the comfort women that accompanies an $8.3 million fund this time paid by his government. And as a nationalist, he can afford to draw on his store of rightwing credibility to buy political advantage. But the apology and the money came with a price attached: South Korea’s promise that the issue of the comfort women would be settled once and for all, and that its government wouldn t complain about it further. And Abe can tell his constituents that he has bought the Koreans’ silence, removing an argument that always came up when Japan was accused of being aggressive or nationalist. That’s almost always how reparations, whether legally formal or (as in this case) informal, work in the real world: The wronged party gets compensation and an apology; the party that did the wrong gets a de facto promise that it won’t have to be reminded of what it did. Without this trade, countries wouldn’t voluntarily pay up, so it may seem naive to criticize the exchange, provided you think compensation is a good thing. All tort settlements, even those between private parties, have something of this character. Compensation functions as corrective justice, and the injured party is expected to be satisfied by the deal. But morally speaking, crimes against humanity aren’t the same as car accidents. Those who enslaved women during World War II weren’t being negligent; they raped and dehumanized
these women in particular, and the status and fundamental rights of women everywhere. Promising a form of silence about such crimes in exchange for an apology and compensation seems inadequate to the scope and meaning of the wrongdoing. During negotiations, Japan also sought the removal of a memorial statue in front of its embassy in Seoul. South Korea’s government promised to take up the issue with the survivors – implying a goodfaith effort to make the memorial disappear. Crimes against humanity are the world’s business. They shouldn’t be forgotten, and discussing as well as memorializing them shouldn’t be suppressed or discouraged. The interest in keeping the memory of such crimes alive also extends to the victims themselves. Of course they’re entitled to compensation. But it feels wrong if they can only get it because their government has agreed to drop their case and, to a degree, is encouraging them to drop their efforts to shame the perpetrators. The realities of international practice are inevitable and harsh. Individuals need states to prosecute claims against other states on their behalf. And once states are in the game, they’ll behave as states usually do: trading values and ideals and honor for advancement of their interests. But that doesn’t mean we always have to like it. The memory of terrible wrongs should be preserved, as a goad to stop them from happening again. Our horror about the treatment of the comfort women should steel us to act on behalf of women kidnapped into sexual slavery by Islamic State and Boko Haram. No amount of reconciliation with the past should make us reconcile with those crimes of the present. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. To contact the author of this story: Noah Feldman at nfeldman7@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Brooke Sample at bsample1@bloomberg.net