Submitted by Rockefeller Cen... on Tue, 2017-04-11 08:06
Is America great again yet? We are approaching the conclusion of Trump’s first 100 days—the conspicuous yardstick for which pundits, the media, and politicians alike measure the direction and achievements of an administration. It has been an eventful 2017. Have Trump’s actions been congruent with his campaign promises? Are his accomplishments thus far befitting of his campaign philosophy? Are his supporters content? What do these days forecast for the rest of his term?
Submitted by Rockefeller Cen... on Fri, 2017-01-20 15:41
How did we get here and where are we going? How can activism and faith aid us in making a difference? With the knowledge that a different world cannot be changed by indifferent people, we as the greater public must be aware. President Obama’s former spiritual advisor Joshua DuBois offers similar advice to president-elect Mr. Donald Trump in an interview with the Washington Post, saying we “must address the harm; only then can we have any chance of moving forward into hope.” As the nation deals with further racial polarization and divisive issues in religion and the nature of justice, Obama’s “Pastor-in-Chief” could shed some light on foreseen challenges in race and religion under the Trump Administration
Submitted by Rockefeller Cen... on Wed, 2016-11-09 08:17
How did we get to where we are today? Where are we going to go from here? This election cycle has been one of the most divisive campaigns in our nation’s history. It has been a very long and out-of-the-ordinary presidential campaign and a neck-and-neck U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire. A panel of American politics faculty members assessed the results of the national and state elections. This event analyzed the candidates and what their win – and loss – means for the state of New Hampshire and the rest of the countr and wrestled with the questions that have been bothering us throughout this election.
The panelists included Dartmouth College government professor and department chair Dean Lacy. Professor Lacy also serves as the Director of the Program in Politics and Law at the College. His research and teaching focuses on American and comparative politics, particularly elections, public opinion, and lawmaking. Additionally, Professor Lacy has written on the use and importance of economic sanctions in international relations, third party candidates, economic voting, referendums and initiatives, and divided government.
Submitted by Rockefeller Cen... on Mon, 2016-09-26 10:08
42%. It’s the percentage of the voting electorate that currently identifies as “independent,” according to a recent Gallup poll, and it’s a number that seems especially just during this polarized political season. One might portend that as this number grudges forward, both Republicans and Democrats would conduct a concerted effort to charm these election-deciding voters. However, the 2016 election and the GOP platform especially represent a complete and total departure from moderation.
Submitted by Rockefeller Cen... on Fri, 2016-04-29 11:12
The Rockefeller Center welcomed Governor Jack Markell (D-DE) on April 27, 2016 for a coffee hour with a small, bipartisan group of Dartmouth students.
Governor Markell immediately opened up the conversation for students' questions. Discussion points ranged from the 2016 presidential election and party politics to transnational trade and globalization. Much of the conversation focused on economic issues. The governor described how his past career in the private sector, working in high-level positions at Nextel and Comcast, had prepared him for the public sector.
Governor Markell has made great progress with Delaware's economy. He discussed measures put in place to develop the skills of workers through programs such as Coding Academy, CNA and customer service training, and language immersion schools. These programs support Governor Markell's belief that American workers have the advantage of creativity and innovation, but too often lack the technical skills that jobs require.
Submitted by Rockefeller Cen... on Fri, 2016-03-25 12:48
With the 2016 presidential election approaching rapidly, politics has once again risen to the forefront of many of our thoughts. As primaries and caucuses for party nominations quickly come and go, the competition to win the nomination becomes ever stiffer as voting results force some nominees to the frontlines of the battle for the presidency while others are forced to drop out. Now perhaps more so than ever, the media and the public alike are also becoming politicized as debates regarding likely nominees and general election scenarios rage on. This intense scrutiny focused on the 2016 presidential election is, perhaps, partly due to the various conflicting forces at play in this presidential election, from the great ideological divergence between the potential nominees of the opposing parties to the different personas adopted by potential nominees within their own parties. A number of important developments, including the sudden loss of a Supreme Court Justice and a new round of terrorist attacks in Europe, have further intensified this election.
Submitted by Rockefeller Cen... on Fri, 2016-02-12 00:00
With the passing of the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary, two crucial steps in the lead up to the Presidential election have now occurred. As members of the Dartmouth community, many of us had the opportunity to participate in Tuesday’s primary. Political primaries are an essential component of the political process as they hold outsized sway over public opinion. Despite the relatively small number of voters, the media, the American public, the candidates, donors and other politicians pay close attention to the results of these early contests. Everyone seeks an answer to the same question – which candidates have the ability to progress onto later primaries and to potentially win the election?
The Rockefeller Center hosted a panel of Dartmouth Government Department faculty who study American politics, to share their expertise. The panel included Professors Joseph Bafumi, Linda Fowler and Dean Lacy and was moderated by Professor Ron Shaiko.
Submitted by Rockefeller Cen... on Mon, 2016-02-08 10:18
“Part of the reason I chose to come to college in New Hampshire was to be able to participate in democracy through the primaries and, being a swing state, we’ve had so much access to political candidates from both parties,” Rockefeller Center First-Year Fellow Charlotte Blatt ’18 tells the BBC in a video about the New Hampshire primary and what young voters like Blatt and her fellow Dartmouth students are looking for in the candidates.
Read the full story and watch the video, published 2/4/16 by the BBC.
Submitted by Rockefeller Cen... on Thu, 2016-02-04 11:44
Exerpted from Bill Platt's original article published in Dartmouth Now on Feb 4, 2016.
Every four years, Dartmouth students get an early look at the field of Republican and Democratic candidates for president in the run-up to the New Hampshire primary. Election season offers the College community an unparalleled opportunity to participate in retail politics and serves as an extension of the classroom, says Professor Ronald Shaiko.
This video offers a quick look at the Upper Valley political events leading up to the Feb. 9 New Hamsphire primary vote.
Submitted by Rockefeller Cen... on Sun, 2016-01-31 11:04
On Friday morning, January 29, 2016, U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) visited the Public Policy 5 class of Professor Ron Shaiko at the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center. Senator Ayotte spoke to the class of approximately 100 students about how she is working with her colleagues in the Senate to adopt more evidence-based processes of selecting and evaluating new and ongoing government programs.
Senator Ayotte presented several examples in which the federal government programs that are either duplicative or are not based on any measureable metrics to judge the success or failure of such programs. She pointed out that an Afghanistan Economic Development Task Force was provided with an $800 million budget by Congress to create sustainable economic growth opportunities for the Afghan people. In the end, the limited programming that did result from the programming neither served to produce sustained economic growth nor to engage the Afghan people in such programs.