Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, November 7, 2016

Clinton calls wisely on Obama to deliver speech

R

acist, misogynistic, idiotic, 
corrupt, 
conniving, 

demonic. These are just a 

sampling of the colorful adjectives 
I’ve heard used to describe 
the major party nominees for 
president of one of the oldest and 
most powerful democracies on 
the planet. 

Such 
a 
vitriolic 
campaign 

has 
fractured 
the 
partisan 

divide into a gaping chasm, with 
many 
conservatives 
denouncing 

Democratic presidential nominee 
Hillary Clinton as a criminal, 
and many liberals condemning 
Republican presidential nominee 
Donald Trump as an orange-tinted 
Hitler wannabe. A veritable cascade 
of scandals has left about 60 percent 
of voters viewing both Trump and 
Clinton unfavorably and has even 
discouraged many from casting a 
vote at all. The grueling campaign 
has especially disillusioned young 
voters: 9 percent are still undecided 
about a candidate. Considering 
young people must live with the 
next president’s actions the longest, 
sitting out the election isn’t an 
option. Despite both candidates’ 
low favorability, I implore any 
politically disheartened college-
aged peers to vote for the only 
rational choice: Hillary Clinton.

Voting 
matters. 
In 
our 

republican system, casting a vote 
can influence the course of citizens’ 
lives for years to come. To willingly 
forgo voting is to throw away a 
voice and waste the opportunity 
to be a voice for those within this 
country unable to vote, including 
children, those without citizenship 
and those silenced by often racially 
motivated 
voter 
identification 

laws. Whoever takes office in 2017 
will have a dramatic impact on the 
rights of minority groups, college 
affordability, national security, the 
environment, education, health 
care and much more. In addition, 
the next president may be in office 
for as long as eight years, enough 
time for a current 20-year-old 
to cycle through a few jobs, get 
married and have a child. Given 
that the next president’s policies 
have the potential to shape my 
generation’s most formative years, 
this election is much too important 
for young people to sit out. 

Part of this election’s importance 

stems from the president’s ability 
to nominate future Supreme Court 
justices. Because of Justice Antonin 
Scalia’s death and the advanced age 
of many current justices, the next 
president could appoint three or 
more justices. I cannot overstate the 
significance of these appointments: 
A liberal-majority court versus a 
conservative-majority court would 
likely rule very differently when 
confronted with cases concerning 
LGBTQ 
equality, 
religious 

freedom, gun reform, women’s 
reproductive 
rights, 
financial 

regulation of corporate America 
and immigration. Trump runs on a 
platform promising to nullify court 
decisions protecting a woman’s 
right to choose and marriage 
equality for gay and lesbian couples.

Trump also promises to appoint 

justices committed to protecting 
gun rights against even moderate 
reform. In stark contrast to Trump, 
Clinton 
would 
likely 
appoint 

justices 
who 
support 
LGBTQ 

and women’s rights and are more 
critical of the financial sector’s 
excesses. Withholding a vote in 
the face of a Trump-appointed 
Supreme Court represents tacit 
approval of the legal subjugation of 
the marginalized, corporate greed 
and needless gun violence. Don’t 
throw away the opportunity to 
legally ensure a safer and more 
equitable country. 

A vote on Nov. 8 is also a vote 

between 
two 
different 
visions 

of 
the 
country’s 
approach 
to 

diversity. Trump’s policies mirror 
his well-known racist rhetoric. 
On immigration, Trump plans to 
erect a wall spanning the entirety 
of the United States-Mexico border 
and detain and deport anyone 
entering the country illegally. He 
also plans to temporarily cease all 
immigration into the United States 
from countries with “a history of 
exporting terrorism” and require 
aspiring 
immigrants 
to 
take 

ideological tests before entering 
the country. Moreover, Trump has 
stated that the Black Lives Matter 
movement incites racial violence. 
In contrast to Trump, Clinton 
promotes an easier pathway to 
citizenship and plans to introduce 
comprehensive immigration reform 
legislation within 100 days of taking 
office. She also plans to combat 
mass incarceration and police racial 
profiling. Clinton’s vast superiority 
on matters of diversity and racial 

justice means not voting represents 
tacit approval of Trump’s racist 
vision for America.

The candidates could also have 

profound effects on the future of 
the planet itself. Climate change’s 
potentially 
cataclysmic 
effects 

harm the youngest generations the 
most. Though this issue will persist 
long after the next president leaves 
office, the impact of Trump or 
Clinton’s environmental decisions 
will span centuries. Trump has 
stated he believes climate change 
is a myth created by the Chinese 
and plans to scrap the Clean Power 
Plan designed to reduce carbon 
emissions. Clinton endorses the 
Clean Power Plan and hopes to 
reduce carbon emissions by up 
to 30 percent by 2025 through 
expanded use of renewable energy 
and reduced consumption of fossil 
fuels. The coming generations 
most 
harmed 
by 
climate 

change don’t have a vote in this 
election, so it’s up to the present 
generations to elect leaders who 
take this threat seriously.

Donald Trump and Hillary 

Clinton champion dramatically 
disparate visions for this country’s 
future and I believe it’s highly 
unlikely for a voter to find both 
platforms 
equally 
unfavorable. 

Libertarian presidential nominee 
Gary Johnson and Green Party 
presidential nominee Jill Stein 
exist 
as 
options, 
but 
their 

likelihood of victory leave only 
Trump and Clinton as serious 
candidates. I have presented just a 
small sampling of the issues people 
who refrain from voting effectively 
ignore. Though many voters may 
find both candidates personally 
unappealing, one of them will be 
elected Nov. 8 and their policies 
will have a colossal impact on all 
citizens in the years to come. I 
believe any rational person would 
agree Clinton’s vision for America 
would be vastly more welcoming 
and prosperous than Trump’s.

So for your own sake and the 

sake of the country, I urge any 
discouraged voters to carefully 
research the possible futures for 
the United States on the ballot and 
cast a vote for Hillary Clinton this 
upcoming Tuesday.

ANNIE TURPIN | CONTACT ANNIE AT ASTURPIN@UMICH.EDU

Why passing the RTA plan is a must

MAX LUBELL | COLUMN

W

ith the ability to 
boost the regional 
economy, create major 

conveniences and improve the 
region’s transportation 
infrastructure, 
expansion 
of 
the 

Regional 
Transit 

Authority is arguably 
the most important 
piece 
of 
local 

legislation 
on 
the 

ballot in Southeast 
Michigan. The case 
for regional transit has 
a plethora of no-cost 
arguments that make 
it an absolute necessity to vote 
yes on the approval of the RTA 
master plan.

The 
Regional 
Transit 

Authority 
master 
plan, 

if 
approved, 
will 
expand 

bus transit lines, create an 
affordable 
airport 
express 

service, increase senior citizen 
paratransit services and create 
a rail line connecting Ann Arbor 
and Detroit, while other types 
of transit will connect these 
two cities to Dearborn, Wayne 
and Ypsilanti. The transit plan 
will 
create 
seamless 
travel 

between counties and suburbs 
in the region, many of which are 
currently unconnected by any 
means of public transit.

The lack of regional transit in 

the status quo creates a massive 
barrier to regional employment 
opportunities. It leaves many 
without a means of transporting 
to major suburban job centers. 
Today Southeast Michiganders 
live 
farther 
away 
from 

employment opportunities than 
before the collapse of the auto 
industry. Lack of regional transit 
in Southeast Michigan has a 
direct effect on these barriers 
and the lack of employment 
opportunities. Voting yes on the 
RTA’s master plan can change 
that, creating transit options that 
link these employment centers 
with potential employees. This 
plan, when implemented, will 
be incredibly useful for business 
owners, who will gain a reliable 
source of employment that pulls 
from an increased population 
of people who have access to 
reliable transportation to and 
from work.

What’s more, the expanded 

transportation system will also 
contribute to bringing in new 
types of employment. Successful 

mass 
transit 
will 

attract 
young 
and 

educated workers to 
the region. Empirically, 
cities with extensive 
public transportation 
become 
more 

attractive to educated 
millennials, 
thus 

importing a productive 
sector 
for 
the 

workforce. Connecting 
suburban areas, along 

with more urban centers such as 
Detroit and Ann Arbor, can create 
this effect for the region. The 
increase in employment options 
will have a critical impact on the 
local economy.

Increased public transportation 

will directly increase employment 
options, which in turn grows the 
regional economy. The major 
critics of the transit authority 
come from those opposed to the 
increased tax that comes with it. 
The plan would create a 1.2-mill 
tax that will cost the average 
household $95 per year. For some 
in the Macomb and Oakland 
county areas, the tax increase 
is perceived as unrewarding, as 
the transit opportunities will not 
directly impact them. I believe 
these arguments are nonsensical 
and unfounded.

The 
regional 
economy 

boost, caused by the increase in 
employment, would justify the 
tax increase no matter where 
one lives in the region. For every 
dollar invested into the transit 
system there will be a $4 return 
on investment. Such logic makes 
the tax increase a no-cost option 
for the region.

The major critiques of the 

RTA master plan all seem to 
come from the same line of 
reasoning: 
Individuals 
who 

will not be connected to or will 
not use public transit believe 
regional transit will not be 
beneficial for them. There are 
several reasons this line of 
reasoning is unfounded. The 
economic 
boost 
makes 
the 

proposed 
RTA 
master 
plan 

beneficial to everyone, even in 
counties not directly connected 

to the transit lines. The millage 
will also be advantageous for 
business owners, even if they 
do not personally use public 
transportation 
— 
reliable 

transportation 
is 
often 
a 

requirement for employment, so 
the expanded transit options will 
make more people employable.

Dispelling 
the 
economic 

arguments, public transportation 
is also a major convenience. 
Imagine having a rail line to take 
you to the airport or major city 
centers without hassle. Perhaps 
car culture is so ingrained in the 
common American that the idea 
of using public transit seems too 
far-fetched. If so, then that is 
the exact reason we need public 
transit: to eliminate the car 
culture mentality that makes so 
many regions inaccessible for 
citizens without reliable access 
to a motor vehicle. 

The boost to the local economy 

makes the proposed RTA master 
plan a sensible and no-cost 
option. Voters should consider 
not only the logical benefits to 
the transit authority’s master 
plan, but also the way we want 
our region to look. Transportation 
infrastructure 
is 
crumbling 

throughout the nation. Michigan 
can be seen as a staple child for 
the 
country’s 
transportation 

problems, and our public transit is 
an excellent example of that. 

Do we want our region to be one 

with a crumbling public transit 
system, where demand for public 
transportation 
to 
employment 

sectors 
drastically 
outweighs 

the supply of transit options? 
Do we want to live in a region 
where residents have to remain 
unemployed simply because they 
don’t have a way to get to work? 
Do we want to live in a region 
where we force a resident to walk 
21 miles every day traveling 
to their job and back home? 
Well, that is the region we live 
in now, but voting yes on the 
proposed 
Regional 
Transit 

Authority master plan would 
provide the opportunity to 
change that and improve our 
region for everyone.

LAURA SCHINAGLE

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

SHOHAM GEVA

Editor in Chief

CLAIRE BRYAN 

and REGAN DETWILER 

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

Carolyn Ayaub
Claire Bryan

Regan Detwiler
Brett Graham
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Ben Keller
Minsoo Kim
Kit Maher

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Ali Safawi

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Ashley Tjhung

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Max Lubell can be reached at 

mlubell@umich.edu.

AARON KALL | OP-ED

A

mid 
the 
chorus 
of 

tightening 
polls 
in 

Michigan, 
President 

Barack Obama will make his 
fourth 
visit 
to 
Ann 
Arbor 

as president on Monday to 
campaign for Hillary Clinton. 
The campaign hopes a capacity 
crowd of 4,000 will be in 
attendance at the University of 
Michigan’s Ray Fisher Stadium 
to witness the president’s closing 
argument for Clinton before 
voting begins Tuesday morning.

No Republican presidential 

candidate since George H. W. 
Bush in 1988 has won the state 
of Michigan, but Clinton’s once 
double-digit lead has narrowed 
significantly in the past week. 
Clinton currently enjoys a five-
point lead in the state, according 
to 
the 
RealClearPolitics 

average of recent polls. This 
mirrors the most recent FOX 2 
Mitchell Poll of Michigan that 
was released Sunday. Despite 
this solid edge, Clinton’s lead 
isn’t 
insurmountable 
and 

the campaign of Republican 
presidential nominee Donald 
Trump has some reason to be 
optimistic. He easily dispatched 
of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) 
during the March primary by 
12 points, while Clinton was 
unexpectedly defeated by Sen. 
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) 50-48.

All polling heading into the 

Democratic primary 
showed 

Clinton 
comfortably 
ahead, 

and Trump hopes a similar 
undervote exists for him in 
Michigan during the general 
election. His message on free 
trade and outsourcing resonates 
with many Michigan voters 
and the campaign has pinned 
its hopes of a comeback victory 
by 
turning 
Michigan 
red. 

Numerous surrogates and a wave 
of advertisements blanketed the 
state this last week; Trump has 
even scheduled a concluding 

rally 
in 
Grand 
Rapids 
for 

late Monday night. President 
Obama’s popularity and positive 
experiences in the state make 
him the ideal surrogate for 
Clinton 
— 
a 
well-received 

speech from him could help her 
cross the presidential finish line.

While 
Clinton’s 
approval 

ratings are dragging because 
of questions surrounding her 
honesty and trustworthiness, 
President Obama is enjoying 
some of the best polling numbers 
of his presidency as he prepares 
to leave office. Fifty-four percent 
of Americans now approve of 
the job he’s doing as president, 
according to a recent CBS/
New York Times poll. Similarly, 
Gallup finds his job approval 
rating at 53 percent. President 
Obama has also experienced a 
tremendous amount of political 
success in Michigan, carrying 
the state by 16 points in 2008 and 
9.5 points in 2012.

President 
Obama 
is 
no 

stranger to giving a terrific 
speech, but explicitly reaching 
out to millennial voters is the 
most important thing he can 
accomplish on Monday. Clinton 
currently leads Trump among 
this 
critical 
demographic 

group by over a 2-1 margin, 
but millennials are notorious 
for inconsistently turning out 
to vote. Only 46 percent of 
this group voted in the 2012 
election and Clinton is hoping to 
significantly raise these numbers. 
Because Michigan doesn’t have 
early 
voting, 
ensuring 
that 

millennials are highly motivated 
to turn out could determine 
which candidate wins the state. 
President Obama is especially 
popular with younger voters, as 
his job approval rating is over 
60 percent with this crowd. 
Being the father of two teenage 
daughters enables him to further 
connect with this target audience 
and a college campus will 
provide the perfect backdrop for 
the president to lay out his final 
case on Clinton’s behalf.

In addition to the fate of 

Michigan’s 16 electoral votes, 
President Obama’s legacy is 
also on the line during what is 
likely his last visit to Ann Arbor 
as 
commander-in-chief. 
The 

fate of the Affordable Care Act 
and several signature executive 
orders will be determined by 
the outcome of the election. 
A Clinton victory would be 
perceived in many ways as a 
third term for his administration 
and validation of his presidency. 
This adds an additional layer 
of pressure to the speech, and 
Michigan will no doubt be the 
political epicenter of the nation 
on Monday.

A 
Democratic 
candidate 

hasn’t visited the state this 
late in the election cycle since 
John Kerry in 2004. Reince 
Priebus, Republican National 
Committee chairman, said this 
weekend that if Trump wins the 
state of Michigan, “it’s all over.” 
An unexpected victory here 
could leave a fatal crack in the 
Clinton blue firewall and enable 
a path for Trump to accumulate 
the 270 electoral votes needed 
to be president. The Clinton 
campaign and its chairman, 
John 
Podesta, 
are 
publicly 

expressing 
confidence 
about 

prevailing in Michigan, but 
the dearth of early voting has 
injected uncertainty into the 
race and is certainly the cause 
of so many late high-profile 
visits to the state. President 
Obama has been dispatched to 
ensure that there will not be 
another major political upset 
in Michigan this year. He 
has an excellent track record 
delivering under pressure and 
there is no other surrogate 
Clinton 
would 
rather 
have 

making her closing argument to 
voters given the magnitude of 
the moment.

Aaron Kall is the director of debate 

for the University of Michigan 

Debate Team. 

MAX 

LUBELL

AARON KALL

Your vote for Clinton matters

THOMAS AIELLO | OP-ED

THOMAS AIELLO

Thomas Aiello is a sophomore in the 

Taubman College of Architecture and 

Urban Planning.

