What do the Democratic debates say about the year ahead in politics?

The Democratic primary debates have arrives. What do these televised arguments tell us about the future of the party and the 2020 elections?

The Democratic primary debates have arrived

Wednesday night saw the first of what will become many presidential debates this election season. Ten hopeful candidates answered a variety of questions, outlining policies and, on occasion, showing an intermediate-to-fluent grasp of the Spanish language.

On Thursday, another 10, including current front-runner Joe Biden, took part in a second debate. It was the first major test for Biden, along with other front runners such as California Senator Kamala Harris, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

Biden proved to be a major target. As the current front-runner, he has faced extra scrutiny for many things, from his handsy nature to his wavering support for the abortion-friendly Hyde Amendment.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who made waves in the first aired debate, pulled ahead for her strongly-worded statements on economic inequality (and also for getting the most questions). San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro also got in a surprising amount of speaking time, given that he has polled somewhere between 0 and 1 percent.

The debates seem to show a Democratic party that is shifting more to the left, with proposals that focus on student debt relief, healthcare for all, and immigration reform. Biden, who has proven to be a more centrist candidate, could be an uncomfortable fit for a changing nation. Democratic leaders within the party may still forge ahead with Biden, who, if polls are to be of any use, currently stands the best chance of defeating Trump.

Don’t get overly excited just yet. These debates covered a whopping 20 candidates. Only one of them is going to secure the nomination a year from now. Who knows what will happen in the interim? Looking at the 2016 elections, it’s easy to understand that truly strange things can happen. It’s going to be an interesting year.

Migrants still face horrific conditions at Border Patrol stations

This week, it became clear that the conditions for migrants at the U.S. – Mexico border have not improved. A few months prior, we read a spate of stories concerning family separations of migrants apprehended there. Though the White House and Department of Homeland Security agreed to change the separation policy after widespread condemnation, it has not addressed both that problem and other issues at the border.

This week, reports and interviews with immigration attorneys described harsh and inhumane conditions at detention centers holding minors. The laundry list of violations includes prolonged separation from family members, poorly rationed food, little to no play or social interaction, and lack of access to basic hygiene needs.

Some children who were interviewed had not been given a change of clothes since their apprehension, meaning that they had been wearing the same clothing for days or even weeks. Showers and baths, they said, were inconsistent at best.

Others report the spread of diseases, left unchecked by lack of soap and lackadaisical medical attention. Professor and attorney Elora Mukherjee, of the Columbia Law School, was told of flu and lice epidemics at detention centers. She also personally witnessed many of the grim conditions at the Clint holding facility in south Texas.

Over the last year, seven children have died while in the custody of immigration and border officials. For the decade prior, no child deaths were reported.

Though the Department of Homeland Security ostensibly stopped family separations months ago, there are children as young as toddlers who have been detained alone. In some centers, they have been placed under the care of unrelated children, some of whom are only a few years older than their charges.

Amid the rising tide of horror stories from these detention centers, Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John Sanders is resigning. In his statement, Sanders did not explain why he was leaving.

Supreme Court rules on gerrymandering and census cases

The Supreme Court has ruled that questions of partisan gerrymandering are not fit for federal review. It has therefore thrown out the case brought before it, by a 5-4 majority.

Gerrymandering is a tactic in which politicians redraw political maps in an attempt to gather voters friendly to their cause, or to isolate those who might vote against them. It’s been the subject of great debate over the years, with many claiming that its use unfairly manipulates the American political system.

Meanwhile, the court also ruled against the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census. Justices concluded that census officials had presented a “contrived” rationale that did not outweigh the dangers of including the question. Opponents of the citizenship question argued that it could leave a wide swath of people too afraid to answer and return the full questionnaire.

An inaccurate census could lead to a skewed picture of the United States and its citizens. Given that census data is used to determine how aid, funding, and other federal programs are distributed throughout the nation, inaccuracies can be potentially devastating.

The president has said that he will look into delaying the census. However, the Census Act, a federal law also known as Title 13, mandates an April 1 launch date. To change the date, Congress would have to agree to modify the law. The president might be able to delay the census by an executive order, though it would be an unprecedented and provocative move in a contentious election year.

Mueller agrees to testify

Contrary to previous claims, special counsel Robert S. Mueller is going to testify. Mueller has agreed to speak before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on July 17.

No one seems to agree on what Mueller will present before Congress. Some think that the back-to-back hearings will produce something of value. Certainly, members of the White House staff are bound to be watching with bated breath, president included. Mueller’s words may provide the drive needed for Congress to bring obstruction charges against the president. If nothing else, they may deal serious damage to his 2020 re-election campaign.

Others maintain that Mueller’s testimony won’t reveal anything we don’t already know. In his earlier statements, Mueller argued that he wasn’t going to appear because the report contained all that he had to say. He has proven resistant to speaking publicly, doing so only once after the report had been submitted to Attorney General William Barr.

In a letter addressed to Mueller, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler and Chairman of the Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff were both insistent on the special counsel’s appearance.

“The American public deserves to hear directly from you about your investigation and conclusions,“ they wrote. “We will work with you to address legitimate concerns about preserving the integrity of your work, but we expect that you will appear before our committees as scheduled.”

Stephanie Grisham to become White House press secretary

Stephanie Grisham, formerly a senior aide to First Lady Melania Trump, will be taking on the mantle of White House press secretary. The post, recently vacated by the controversial and combative Sarah Huckabee Sanders, acts as a liaison between the White House and members of the press. With the president’s own tense relationship with the media, the two press secretaries of his administration have had to produce a high-wire act of rhetorical spin.

Sometimes, they resorted to hiding, like Sean Spicer hiding in the bushes to avoid talking with the press. Sanders, despite being somewhat more successful than Spicer, ended her tenure with a 94-day drought of conferences.

Before her time with the First Lady in the East Wing, Grisham had worked on the president’s campaign and then as a deputy to Sean Spicer. Currently, she will continue as a spokesperson for the First Lady, while also doing double duty as press secretary and White House communications director.

And, finally, your palate cleanser

Lobsters are fascinating. No, seriously. The sea creature that has moved from being trash food to a gourmand’s butter-laden delight is a deeply interesting animal in its own right.

For one, they might be astonishingly long-lived. Lobsters aren’t actually immortal, but they can live for quite a while. Scientists are having a hard time getting an answer on that front, since lobsters can shed their entire exoskeleton during the molting process.

That leaves little behind on the actual lobster that can accurately indicate their age. However, since molting gives the lobster the chance to grow bigger, the existence of lobsters weighing 20 pounds or more indicates that they’ve been around for a few decades. Current estimates give male lobsters an average lifespan of 31 years, while the females clock in at 54 years.

Lobster colors are also a deeper dive than you might think. Most of them are a rather plain mottled green and brown. But some lobsters come in striking shades of blue, orange, yellow, and even white. The New England Aquarium even acquired a “Halloween” lobster, with one black half and one orange one, neatly divided down the middle.