N

ow that the midterm 
elections are over with 
and Democrats won the 
popular vote in the House by the 
largest margins since Watergate, 
it is safe to turn our attention to 
2020, albeit a bit early. Despite 
some rumblings from Ohio Gov. 
John 
Kasich, 
the 
Republican 
presidential nominee for president 
will most likely be Donald Trump. 
On the left, though, a competitive 
race seems to be shaping up, 
giving Democratic voters as many 
choices as required to choose their 
ideal 2020 candidate.
Of 
course, 
there 
will 
be 
some in the media who push a 
Democrats-in-disarray story both 
because it is easy and because it 
conforms to a long-held narrative 
about the Democratic Party’s 
inability to truly be inclusive of 
fiscal conservatives and social 
progressives at the same time. 
There will undoubtedly be think-
pieces analyzing party infighting 
about whether to move toward 
the middle or the left. While we 
should absolutely have serious 
policy debates on questions such 
as the merits of Medicare for 
all versus public option health 
insurance, the Democratic Party 
has always been a big tent party 
filled with voters from left of 
center to the far left. And that’s 
okay. It simply means we have 
more voices and perspectives 
contributing to the effort to solve 
our country’s problems and help 
as many Americans as we can.
In 2020, we unquestionably 
need a nominee who aligns with 
the party’s values as we define 
them in the coming months, but 
they should also have the ability 
to unite the country through 
inspiration and a vision of hope. 
While fear is a very powerful 
motivational 
tool—especially 
in politics as evidenced most 
recently 
by 
Trump’s 
2016 
presidential campaign— hope and 
change the old adages of President 
Barack Obama, are exactly what 
so many Americans are deeply 
craving for our country.
While 
there 
haven’t 
been 
any major announcements of 
presidential bids quite yet, there 
is ongoing list of people dipping 
their toes in the water, gathering 
advisers and pollsters to make 
their decision and shying away 

from the question on Sunday 
shows. These candidates cover 
the 
entire 
spectrum 
of 
the 
Democratic 
Party, 
including 
former Massachusetts Gov. Deval 
Patrick, former Vice President 
Joe Biden, former Virginia Gov. 
Terry McAuliffe, and Sens. Cory 
Booker, 
Kirsten 
Gillibrand, 
Kamala Harris and Elizabeth 
Warren. All of these potential 
candidates 
have 
their 
own 
strengths and weaknesses, and 
it would be futile to guess which 
ones will appeal most to voters in 
2020.
A few names missing from 
the list are Sen. Bernie Sanders, 
former New York City mayor 
Michael 
Bloomberg, 
former 
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz 
and venture capitalist Tom Steyer, 
who have all expressed interest 
in running but do not actually 
have any stake to the Democratic 
Party.
It is important that the party 
does not over-adjust itself in an 
effort to learn something from 
the 2016 election; it would be 
unwise to choose a candidate 
whose 
identity 
and 
policies 
capitulate in an attempt to appeal 
to Trump voters. Though it was 
heartbreaking to witness Andrew 
Gillum of Florida, Stacey Abrams 
of Georgia, and Beto O’Rourke 
of Texas lose their exciting 
campaigns, it is important to 
remember those exciting and 
progressive 
candidates 
came 
closer to winning their elections 
than any of the previous bland, 
moderate 
candidates 
had 
in 
recent history. If then-Georgia 
State Secretary Georgia Brian 
Kemp 
hadn’t 
disenfranchised 
tends of thousands of Black 
and Democratic voters, Stacey 
Abrams would be the governor-
elect of Georgia right now. The 
lesson from these races is not that 
we should run more moderate 
candidates, it is that we need 
to do a whole lot of work to end 
the effects of gerrymandering, 
voter 
suppression 
and 
disenfranchisement. 
And 
we 
must remember this for 2020.
Only a candidate who instills 
a sense of hopefulness about 
this country’s ability to fulfill 
its founding promise will excite 
enough voters, enough Americans, 
to triumph over division and fear 

to win the presidency. This sense 
of hopefulness will come from 
the alignment of the candidates’ 
personal stories and their visions 
of the future. Their policies 
will need to be big and bold, 
their rhetoric skills genuine and 
uplifting.
We 
should 
refrain 
from 
declaring 
that 
we 
cannot 
nominate another Black man or 
woman, or white man for that 
matter, just because of history. If 
Beto O’Rourke, a conventionally 
attractive, white, straight man, 
is able to connect to voters and 
deliver a message of hope better 
than any other candidate, then he 
should be the nominee. However, 
we should also consider how 
being a conventionally attractive, 
white, straight man allows him 
to connect to voters more easily 
than someone who is not those 
things. Take Kamala Harris, for 
example, who is a Black woman. 
Because we have seen people 
similar to O’Rourke as president 
in the past, it is much easier to 
imagine him as president. And 
because we have never seen a 
Black female president, it is much 
harder to imagine how she will 
lead and govern, and people tend 
to turn away from that which 
they cannot imagine generally 
out 
of 
misguided 
fear 
and 
uncertainty. Sometimes, though, 
leaning into that is exactly what 
leads to the very best results; 
perhaps having a literally brand-
new type of leader is exactly 
what this country so desperately 
needs. As a party, it is important 
that the Democratic nominee for 
president in 2020 — or at least, the 
ticket — is representative of the 
party’s own demographics.
There 
is 
no 
one 
magical 
candidate that can appeal to 
every single American and solve 
every single issue. But there is a 
candidate in the sea of hopefuls 
who will inspire us to be active in 
the democratic process, who will 
try to unite rather than divide 
us, who will remind of us all of 
the greatness of this American 
experiment. 
And 
she 
should 
absolutely be the Democratic 
nominee for president of the 
United States in 2020.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, December 6, 2018

Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman

Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger

DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

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

ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
 ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND 
ASHLEY ZHANG
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.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

The ideal 2020 candidate

MARISA WRIGHT | COLUMN

Marisa Wright can be reached at 

marisadw@umich.edu.

Historically, 
both 
sides 
of the aisle use this time to 
push last minute legislation 
in favor of their own party’s 
agenda before the change 
in power halts their efforts. 
However, 
the 
Republican 
response 
to 
the 
election 
of Democrats to all three 
Michigan statewide offices 
this year is unprecedented 
and ultimately subversive of 
the will of Michigan voters. 
Democratic state candidates 
were elected to the positions 
of 
governor, 
attorney 
general 
and 
secretary 
of 
state for the first time in 
almost 20 years. Yet both 
legislative chambers remain 
Republican, in part due to 
partisan 
gerrymandering. 
Michigan state Republicans 
have failed to gain a majority 
of votes in either legislative 
house 
despite 
gaining 
a 
majority of seats in both, now 
using their power obtained 
through gerrymandering to 
pass last minute legislation 
in 
direct 
opposition 
to 
statewide 
results. 
They’re 
not just pushing an agenda; 
they’re proposing legislation 
that 
directly 
undermines 
Michigan voters and actively 
works 
against 
democratic 
norms.
So 
far, 
Michigan 
state 
Republicans have proposed 
delaying 
a 
raise 
in 
the 
minimum wage that would 
reach $12 by 2022. Instead, 
they 
have 
pushed 
this 
increase to only take full 
effect by 2030. In addition, 
they also pushed to decrease 
paid sick leave from accruing 
at a rate of one hour every 
30 hours worked to one hour 
for every 40 hours worked. 
Essentially, paid sick leave 
would then be cut from 72 
hours per year to 36 hours per 
year for the average worker. 
Both of these elements of 
the 
minimum 
wage 
bill 
undoubtedly hurt working-
class citizens of Michigan, 
but even worse is how they 

directly invalidate the voice 
of Michigan voters.
The 
minimum 
wage 
initiative 
had 
enough 
signatures 
to 
appear 
on 
the 
ballot 
in 
November, 
but was removed when the 
state 
legislature 
adopted 
the proposal in September. 
Hence, 
the 
Republican 
legislature 
adopted 
the 
bill with the sole purpose 
of 
changing 
it 
after 
the 
elections, defying the will 

of a citizen-led effort at One 
Fair Wage that had garnered 
the 
support 
from 
voters 
across the state. The original 
proposal’s 
minimum 
wage 
increase 
would 
have 
had 
important effects, especially 
in areas like Wayne County 
where 60,000 work in jobs 
with a median hourly wage of 
fewer than $10 per hour. In 
essence, the GOP capitalized 
on 
the 
opportunity 
to 
thwart 
incoming 
officials 
and, in doing so, prevented 
a 
grassroots 
initiative 
that could have positively 
impacted 
thousands. 
If 
anything, 
this 
shows 
how 
entrenched 
power 
hungriness 
is 
in 
politics, 
and the GOP’s overt favoring 
of its position in politics, 
rather than the wishes of its 
constituents.
A 
third 
Republican 
proposal would limit the 
secretary of state’s power 
in 
campaign 
finance 
oversight 
while 
another 
would guarantee that the 

legislature — still controlled 
by the GOP — would have 
the right to intervene in 
any legal battles involving 
state laws that the attorney 
general 
doesn’t 
comment 
on 
or 
defend. 
Michigan 
voters elected their attorney 
general 
and 
secretary 
of 
state, yet the Republican 
legislature 
is 
trying 
to 
negate their elections. These 
proposals are gross abuses 
of power; the Republican 
legislature is manipulating 
the democratic process to 
fit its agenda, an unabashed 
affront to its voters. Petty 
partisan 
politics 
have 
once again impeded good 
governance and effectively 
disenfranchised 
Michigan 
voters.
These 
proposals 
aren’t 
just 
abstract 
procedural 
changes; they will have a 
real impact on students and 
the University of Michigan 
community. 
Raising 
the 
minimum wage can increase 
living standards as living 
costs rise. Paid sick leave 
ensures employees can stay 
home 
when 
they’re 
sick, 
allowing themselves to get 
better while not posing any 
risks to their colleagues. 
We that worry under this 
change, more workers will 
have to choose between their 
health and their paycheck 
solely 
because 
a 
scorned 
and unpopular party chose 
to override the will of the 
voters.
When 
State 
House 
and 
Senate Republicans exploit 
their 
constitutionally 
delegated powers for their 
own political goals, they defy 
the 
democratic 
standards 
to 
which 
we 
hold 
our 
governmental processes. A 
smooth transition of power is 
something the U.S. typically 
prides 
itself 
on, 
but 
the 
blatant power grab of the 
GOP is an outward disregard 
of such precedents.

A 

couple of weeks ago, 
a friend told me to 
apply for an internship 
at 
Palantir, 
a 
company 
that specializes in big data 
analytics. I scrolled through 
the job’s description, wrote a 
quick cover letter and left my 
application untouched for a 
couple of weeks.
At the very same time, the Los 
Angeles police were stopping 
people 
in 
low-income 
areas 
without any clear reason. Manuel 
Rios, a 22-year-old who lives in 
the city’s gang populated area 
was stopped dozens of times 
ever since a police officer took a 
photograph of him after being 
seen with a gang member. Rios 
was never part of a gang, but 
when the police officer took 
his photograph, he was told, 
“Welcome to the gang database!” 
That “gang database” was created 
by Palantir in collaboration with 
the 
L.A. 
police, 
automating 
the targeting of supposed gang 
members. Once a person’s profile 
enters that database, it gets stuck 
there forever, and it gives police 
officers an additional reason 
to constantly invade a person’s 
privacy. For Rios, who has spent 
most of his life doing his best to 
stay away from gang activity, it 
only draws him closer to it.
This is one example of the many 
collaborations of which Palantir 
is part: from working with J.P. 
Morgan to spy on its employees 
to having one of its employees 
work with Cambridge Analytica 
to use Facebook’s users’ personal 
data. As J.P. Morgan’s former 
chief information officer, Guy 
Chiarello put it, Palantir turns 
“data landfills into gold mines.” 
The kind of “data landfills” 
he is talking about allow the 
company to build both police and 
immigration departments models 
that match citizens with labels 
such as “Colleague of,” “Lives 
with,” “Owner of,” and “Lover 
of.” 
Palantir’s blog posts talk about 
its belief in regulations that 
govern data privacy, and about 

its Privacy and Civil Liberties 
Team. Their actions, though, 
tell a different story. Only later 
did I find out that in a company 
managing hundreds of projects 
and thousands of employees, this 
particular team consisted of only 
10 people. I deleted my internship 
application.
There is a lot of talk nowadays 
about algorithmic bias — which 
makes a lot of people think 
there is something wrong with 
the 
algorithms 
themselves. 
In Palantir’s case, though, it’s 
not the algorithms that have a 
problem, but the data that the 
company uses and the way it 
uses the information. But can we 
restrict the manner in which a 
company chooses to use its data?

Hannah Fry, a mathematician 
who recently wrote a book 
on how algorithms affect our 
society, has been advocating 
for 
creating 
a 
regulatory 
government body to check the 
type of data and algorithms 
that companies are deploying. 
At this moment, any company 
is allowed to use any data, 
in any manner it wants. It’s 
the equivalent of having any 
company put any substance in 
a bottle and sell it under any 
label. The same way the FDA 
protects both the intellectual 
property of companies, while 
also ensuring the benefits of 
a product outweigh its harms. 
Is there a way to do this with 
algorithms? Probably. But as 
long as Silicon Valley is on 
track to be the top corporate 
lobbying spender, companies 

will 
likely 
continue 
doing 
whatever they want with our 
data.
People are increasingly not 
willing to share their data 
with companies. Governments 
are casting a suspicious eye 
toward companies collecting 
data from their customers. 
Right now, we live in a time 
when companies like Palantir 
are generating a lot of profit by 
leveraging data that users and 
governments 
unknowingly 
give up on. But what will 
happen five, 10 years from 
now? What will happen when 
all citizens will understand 
that their right to privacy is 
intertwined with the data 
they share? What will happen 
when more governments will 
decide to protect their citizens 
instead of their tech world 
benefactors? Will companies 
like Palantir even be feasible?
It was only after a lawsuit 
that the Los Angeles Police 
Department 
released 

documents about Palantir’s 
surveillance algorithm they 
were using. The result? It 
unveiled the fact that the 
algorithm 
propagates 
the 
disproportionately 
high 
number of arrests of Black 
Angelinos and other minority 
groups. Palantir understood 
the data that it was using 
to develop this algorithm. 
It would had been able to 
predict 
this 
risk. 
But 
it 
didn’t. Until the government 
starts taking action in setting 
restrictions on the data these 
companies use, it is our 
responsibility to understand 
the risks of misusing data. 
It is our responsibility to 
continue questioning these 
companies (maybe even filing 
a 
lawsuit 
against 
them), 
and to consider the ethical 
questions when applying to 
internships.

ANAMARIA CUZA | COLUMN

When companies abuse our data

Anamaria Cuza can be reached at 

anacuza@umich.edu.

JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD

Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and 
Wednesdays 7:15-8:45 PM at our newsroom at 420 
Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss 
national, state and campus affairs.

FROM THE DAILY

Michigan Republicans’ disdain for democracy
F

ollowing the Nov-6 midterm elections, legislative 
bodies across the country are in a lame-duck 
session: the three-month period after many 
incumbents are voted out of office, but before the newly 
elected officials assume their positions next year. 

This shows how 
entrenched power 
hungriness is in 
politics

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the 
editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 
words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words. 
Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation 
to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

Once a person’s 
profile enters 
that database, it 
gets stuck there 
forever

