by: Nandini Krishnan Public healthcare systems are being strained worldwide, as economic systems land themselves in turmoil. At a point in time when reality has blended together with Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion in a nightmarish pandemic, standing in a line to cast a vote in primaries is a nightmarish task. With its rallies, caucuses and large group gatherings, election season feels like the anti-social distancing. So far, 13 states have cancelled their primaries, postponing them for the visible future. Other states, like Wisconsin, insist on going ahead with their primaries, despite warnings about public safety. As cases rise, so do questions about the increasingly intimidating prospect of elections. What’s going to happen to the primaries? Since there is no real timeline to work with here, states are looking at a variety of options to try and continue holding their primaries. Many hope that they will be able to hold them in June, in order to beat the DNC deadline of June 9th. While some states like Louisiana and Kentucky are pushing dates beyond this deadline, they might lose half of their delegates. Other states, like Alaska, Hawaii and Wyoming have moved to a mail based voting system, with mail-in ballots being widely promoted in many other states. States that held their primaries on March 17th, were poorly organised, particularly Illinois, with an extremely low turnout, while others had extremely high turnouts that risked the spread of COVID-19. While everything is still a little bit messy, states and the DNC are working on contingency plans to try and find the best possible solutions to continue holding primaries. Can elections be cancelled? Nope. The US constitution clearly states that “the terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January.” This means that the November elections must continue. A possibility is that certain states may be excluded if they are on “shelter in place” orders, but other than that it is very clear that the November elections must continue no matter what. How is this changing campaigning? While traditionally campaigning has involved a lot of in person contact in the form of community outreach, both Biden and Sanders have been working from their individual hometowns. Trump has also halted his campaigning activity and has been making addresses from the oval office. Furthermore, the coronavirus has completely shifted the tone of the elections, with candidates almost exclusively focusing on the issue on hand and describing possible policies and changes they would make to reduce its impact. However, as of now, Biden has such a large lead in the primary count that Sander’s chances are looking extremely dismal. But with all the ongoing changes it's very hard to be certain about what the future holds. Image sources: https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20180926/p2a/00m/0na/021000c https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/mind-biden-bounce-bernie-trounce-trump-200303075057596.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/19/politics/donald-trump-leadership-coronavirus/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/01/politics/bernie-sanders-fundraising-february/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/05/politics/biden-campaign-cyber-attacks/index.html

By: Alisha Malhotra, Merijn Pluijmers Vaping. A term that was unbeknownst to many has now become a casually thrown around phrase. The rise of vaping has skyrocketed in the past year, especially in high school communities. But why? Defined as ‘the action or practice of inhaling and exhaling the vapour produced by an electronic cigarette or similar device,’ vaping has become an alarmingly common habit amongst youth. This popularity can be contributed, in part, to San Francisco based company Juul, who targeted consumers in their 20s and early 30s in an attempt to profit off those who typically did not have a history of smoking. Juul became so popular, in fact, that ‘juuling’ became its own verb, as high school students began buying and using the sleek, USB shaped devices more frequently. And yet, despite the intention of providing a supposedly safer alternative to smoking, there is simply not enough substantial research on the long-term health effects of vaping to prove that it won’t have the same, if not worse, consequences as regular smoking. There are facts that we do know for certain, however. Firstly: nicotine is a highly addictive substance. Secondly, there is a higher concentration of nicotine in the pod of a vaping device than a single cigarette. Finally, vaping has become increasingly prevalent amongst teenagers, due to its convenience, appealing nature of its flavours, and lack of dangerous connotations as opposed to smoking. Convenience is possibly vaping’s most appealing feature. Due to the slim nature of the device, it can be kept in trouser pockets, or slipped discreetly into a student’s waistband. A recent study by the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that 27.5% of American high school students and 10.5% of middle school students claim to have used a juuling device in a single month. This raging epidemic is one that has expanded across the globe - and despite attempts such as Trump banning the selling of flavoured juul pods, it shows no signs of stopping.

By: Madeline Hirons Quick read There is currently an ongoing crisis within Yemen, where the country is divided between groups. The United Nations has attempted to try and solve this issue however, all policies have so far been unsuccessful. The main conflict is between three main groups, those loyal to Hadi, the president, religious minorities and the Houthis. As well as these two groups, there is an extremist religious group also fighting to take control who have pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda who are threatening to control large areas of Yemen. This conflict is seen as a proxy war between Yemen, Saudi and Iran. Iran is backing the religious minority group, Saudi Arabia is backing the president Hadi. More Millions have been displaced as a result of the situation in Yemen. Thousands of deaths. In 2015, Saudi Arabia got involved by backing the president in power. For some context, in 2012, the Arab Spring occurred. The Arab Spring was the transfer of power in Tunisia when the citizens overthrew the leader in Tunisia. The Arab Spring was influential as it inspired unhappy Yemenis to rise up against the current party/person in power and have their own government. Ali Abdullah Sali’s role of president was given to Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi in 2011. The transfer of power to Hadi resulted in severe economic difficulty such as food problems and unemployment. This resulted in a separatist movement in the south of Yemen. The sides of the war are mainly ideological, those who support the previous president Sali (the Houthis and those loyal to the former president) and those loyal to the new government. 2014 - Houthis took over capital and tried to control the whole country-forcing Hadi out of the country into Saudi Arabia. This led to Saudi and Iran involvement in the conflict. Saudi Arabia started an alliance with other Arab countries and started a military campaign with the Arab countries supplying weapons. Saudi Arabia has the goal of restoring Hadi’s power but has not restored power in the north. Al Qaeda and ISIL have taken advantage of the desperation and were in the south. As well as this there is a severe famine ongoing (17 million affected unless UN steps in) as well as disease and cholera in areas with poor control of sewage and waste. No clean water. All attempts to try and resolve this have failed. Saudi accuses Iran of backing the rebels.

By: Tara Lohani Yemen- one of the Arab world's poorest nations, a country torn apart by civil war, besieged by the threat of famine, and currently undergoing one of the world's worst economic and humanitarian crises. A country that has been plunged into darkness for the past five years, caught up in a conflict predicted to last no more than four weeks. It is 2020 now, and ending Yemen's never-ending war seems to be something that will never transpire- the UN suggests that Yemen faces what could now be "the worst famine the world has seen in a 100 years". According to the Yemen data project, 17,729 have died as a result of the bombings- a further 13 million face high risks of starvation, with almost 85,000 children under the age of five dying from a lack of food. The beginnings of the dispute can be traced back to 2011, following a series of pro-democratic protests known as the Arab Spring, which took place in countries such as Yemen, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, and Bahrain. After the famed jasmine revolution in Tunisia, several protesters in Yemen demanded the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who resorted to economic concessions, an increase in salaries, reduction in income taxes, as well as the drafting of a new constitution. His efforts were of little avail, and as tensions between protesters and Saleh supporters grew, as the rebellions grew increasingly violent, Saleh’s support from within the government itself was weakened. The protests spread throughout the nation, attaining a foothold in regions such as the city of Taiz. On March 18th, 2011, 50 protesters were killed while demonstrating by security forces and Saleh supporters in an open fire. This provoked several government officials to resign in objection, and in November 2012, Saleh finally signed a document transferring his powers to his vice president, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. Hadis rule was terminated within three years; the Houthi rebels, products of the Arab spring, took control of the northern region Yemen, alongside the capital Sanaa. Although a possibility of unity was broken between the rebels and the government on September 21st, the Houthis announced their withdrawal from the agreement on December 8th. Hadis place of residence was shelled on January 20th, and the cabinet alongside Hadi and prime minister resigned the next day. The Houthis consolidated power on the 6th of February, dissolving the parliament, and declaring Mohammad Ali-Houthi as the new ruler of state. Since then, Yemen has faced countless airstrikes at the hands of countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, alongside the U.S, UK, and France, in an attempt to restore Hadi’s government. Three different agents hold claim to Yemen, each fighting to fulfill their own needs- the al-Houthi forces, the coalition of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Yemen, alongside the al-Qaeda and the Arab peninsula. A complex problem, one that requires a complex solution- peace, predictably, has been difficult to achieve. September 2018 saw the UN's failed attempts at organising a peace talk, with president Haidi and the Houthi militia unable to meet at the Genevan negotiations, instead resorting to the violence of the battlefield in order to resolve their differences. 2016, Kuwait- a previous attempt at peace talks, undertook by all, beneficial to none, comprising mainly of Saudi Arabia pledging loyalty to the united states. Since 2014, the security council has endeavoured to solve the conflict through implementations of sanctions, an arms embargo, and the appointment of a UN panel consisting of experts focused explicitly on constructing solutions. What is of utmost importance as of now is discussing various methods beyond peace talks to bring about peace- peace talks are, of course, a significant factor, but looking at past failures, other solutions must be considered as well. In order to bring Yemen the peace it so clearly needs, more attention must be brought upon the fact that it is undergoing an immense amount of suffering. Primarily, the needs of the people of Yemen should be taken into focus. They are innocent civilians, unarmed, and unprepared for fighting- therefore, they must be kept away from harm, as they pose as a threat to no one, but everything, as of now, poses as a threat to them. Humanitarian aid should be provided, by unblocking ports and allowing NGOs and humanitarian parties access in order to stabilize a part of the crisis within the country itself. By overseeing the transportation between ports, further benefits are achieved, as the threat of arms trade is reduced. Although the war in Yemen may be regarded widely to be binary, solely between Houthi rebels and the Saudi coalition, it is, in reality, a war that encompasses multiple nations. The U.S, in particular, who support the coalition through weapon sales. There is no clean slate for any country involved in this conflict; at this point in time, every single nation involved has transgressed. The Saudi-led side of the coalition has seen an increased amount of airstrikes against civilians, hospitals, and schools. Meanwhile, in September, Houthi rebels claim to have captured 2,000 troops and killed 500 Saudi soldiers. Both sides play a significant role, in shaping the present condition of Yemen- as well as its future.

By: Kimaya Ghoge and Reet Lath The Short Story The last week in India has been a shockingly tumultuous one, with the city of New Delhi witnessing some of the worst ever communal violence to take place on its streets in the last 40 years. The background to all of this stems from the passing of a controversial Citizen’s Amendment Act (CAA) in December of 2019, which provides citizenship to religious minorities from India’s three neighbouring Muslim majority countries, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Seeing as the CAA does not make provision for fast-tracking Muslim citizenship, some peaceful protestors took to the streets to voice their discontent with the enacting of this bill, in response to which a BJP leader aggressively threatened them to leave. This ultimatum inspired many of his followers to engage in communal violence, so far resulting in almost 50 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The Long Story As of today – March 2nd – communal violence on the streets of New Delhi has resulted in 46 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The deadly clashes between Hindus and Muslims raged across New Delhi for four days, leaving considerable parts of the city in ruins. Whilst there was violence on both sides, the bloodshed was predominantly driven by Hindu nationalists targeting Muslims in response to a comment made by Kapil Mishra, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader. Speaking at a rally against a group of peaceful protestors (consisting largely of Muslim women) who were opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), Mishra issued a three day ultimatum to the Delhi Police, threatening to violently remove the protestors himself if the police did not take measures to do so. His incendiary comments prompted many of his right-wing Hindu nationalist followers to take matters into their own hands, and in a matter of hours, New Delhi had descended into the worst Hindu-Muslim violence in India in almost 40 years. In addition to the mob violence on the streets, three mosques and countless Muslim-owned houses, shops, vehicles and schools were burned down. Thousands fled their neighbourhoods in fear of their lives, returning days later to find their livelihoods destroyed. The Delhi Police failed to control the violence, and in many cases, enabled and allegedly assisted the Hindu nationalists. First hand accounts claim that emergency calls to the Delhi Police during the peak of the violence went unanswered for 48 to 72 hours. Many theorise that since the Delhi Police report to the BJP – the Hindu-nationalist ruling party – rather than the less religiously-driven governing party of New Delhi, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) who are in power in New Delhi, they turned a blind eye towards the anti-Muslim attacks. However, some government officials attributed the inefficiency of the police to a shortage of officers, given the number that had been assigned to protect President Trump during his visit to India. Regardless, there is no doubt that the inaction of the police has played a role in prolonging the violence. Whilst the violence has now ceased, the situation in New Delhi remains tense as people slowly return to normalcy. Aravind Kejriwal, the leader of the AAP, has promised to compensate the victims of the violence for their losses and detain those responsible. Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister, addressed the situation on the third day of the violence, calling for “peace and harmony”, but has yet to comment on the religious undertones of the bloodshed. To a large extent, the violence in Delhi, as well as the protests and religious tensions that preceded it, stems from the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) passed by Modi’s government in December of 2019. The CAA fast tracks citizenship for refugees – considered illegal immigrants in India – from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered India before 2015 and are being religiously persecuted in their countries of origin; this provision applies to Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Buddhists, and Christians, notably excluding Muslims. Those excluded under the CAA are still eligible to apply for citizenship through regular channels, but require 12 years of residence. The BJP defends the CAA, saying that it simply supports persecuted minorities by expediting their citizenship applications. However, the CAA’s critics argue that the legislation violates India’s secular constitution by granting citizenship on the basis of religion. They have also questioned why persecuted Muslim minorities such as Amhadiyya Muslims in Pakistan and Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar are not accommodated for.

By: Annika Singh, Nandini Krishnan Beto O’Rourke U.S. Representative * UPDATE: Beto dropped out of the race on November 1 Represented Texas’s 16th congressional district in the House of Representatives Lost to Ted Cruz is the Texas Senate race, but came pretty close for a Democrat in a red state His first name is actually Robert - and he was in a punk-rock band called Foss KEY POLICIES: Beto O'Rourke's immigration policy (consisting of a list of "day one" executive orders) seems ambitious at best, given that even the Trump administration was only able to issue three executive orders within their first week. He’s also passionate about climate change - and wants to put $5 trillion into transforming US infrastructure to combat it. Cory Booker New Jersey Senator * UPDATE: Booker dropped out of the race on January 13 Previously mayor of Newark, known for launching snowshowelling campaign via his twitter account during a blizzard. At times, he personally went out to shovel people out. During the Kavanaugh hearings, he took a stand and released emails that showed Kavanuagh’s views on racial diversity He is a gifted speaker and is well connected allowing for a huge funding base KEY POLICIES: following Sander’s plan of medicare for all and backs the Green New Deal. Hopes to create a system for job guarantees, a system that ensures a well paying government job for anyone who applies for one. Also introduced the idea of baby bonds, a savings program that hopes to create income equality. Nomination? Probs not. Kamala Harris California Senator * UPDATE: Harris dropped out of the race on December 3 Joined the Senate in 2016 and was noticed for her questioning of both Trump’s cabinet selections and Brett Kavanaugh However, she has been criticized for wrongful convictions during her time as a senator. She is a daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, making her the first Asian American woman and first black woman as a Californian senator KEY POLICIES: Huge emphasis on the gender pay gap, specifically in public schools and prosecutors. She also hopes to put workers in better financial situations through a monthly stipend. She also hopes to provide a road to citizenship for DREAMers. Andrew Yang American entrepreneur * UPDATE: Yang dropped out of the race on February 11 The first presidential candidate to conduct a giveaway - he promised a universal basic income of $12,000 to 10 families at the September debate (“It’s original. I’ll give you that.” Buttigieg responded) Calls his supporters the ‘Yang Gang’ Sustains a 3% at the polls, despite his lack of political experience KEY POLICIES: Supports Medicare for All ("I'm Asian, so I know a lot of doctors. And they tell me that they spend a lot of time... avoiding being sued," he said at the September debate). Has a detailed plan to create layers of licensing for firearms, requiring universal background checks. Pete Buttigieg * UPDATE: Buttigieg dropped out of race on March 2 - unable to win over broad voter range in South Carolina Mayor of South Bend, Indiana Afghanistan war veteran, serving as a Navy Reserve from 2007-2010. Prior to this he was a consultant at Mckinsey and company. He is the only openly gay candidate Youngest candidate in the race, at 37 KEY POLICIES: Wants a single payer healthcare system dubbed “Medicare for all who want it.” Additionally he wants to increase mental health services. Supports DACA, but still wants more border security (but not a wall). He hopes for the USA to be carbon neutral by 2050, and wants to increase LGBT rights. Nomination? Likely Michael Bloomberg Billionaire CEO of Bloomberg L.P. * UPDATE: Bloomberg dropped out of the race on March 4 He was the mayor of New York from 2002 to 2013 and ran as a Republican during his first term, before switching to independent during his second term. He re-joined the Democratic party in 2018 He has already spent millions on advertising and skipped the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary in favour of campaigning in the delegate-heavy races His priority is beating Trump stating that he is “running for president to defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America.” KEY POLICIES: While he doesn’t support Medicare-for-All, he has suggested a public option that would provide better support. He believes in increased gun control and hopes to provide better protection for groups like dreamers.

By: Po Eic Quah South Africa prides itself on its history of overcoming adversity. Having endured the brutality of imperialism and Apartheid, South Africa sees it survival as a testament to the resilience and strength of her multicultural population. South Africa portrays herself as a beacon of multiracial democracy; an abode of peace in an Africa marked by protracted civil wars and tyrannical dictatorships. Though post-Apartheid South Africa promises its people a nation free from the racism of the past, the people of South Africa have seemed to turn its racism against someone different this time - African immigrants. It seems almost ironic that despite being disenfranchised under a white-minority government during the colonial and Apartheid era, many black South Africans have incited and called for aggression against immigrants from other African countries. Claiming that their jobs have been taken by immigrants from Zambia and Tanzania, many of the unemployed have taken to the streets of Johannesburg to loot and destroy migrant-owned businesses in a frenzy of violence. Politicians from the African National Congress, eager to retain their constituencies in the face of economic woes and increasing voter disillusionment, have conveniently weaponised xenophobic sentiments to divert attention from the inner failings of the ANC. They have tried to frame the influx of migrants as the sole cause of dire unemployment and economic stagnation, even blaming loose border control policies in their own party for these unfavourable conditions. Fortunately for them and unfortunately for migrants, many South Africans are convinced by this rhetoric. The rise of this isolationist brand of nationalism might be perceived to be an anomaly, but considering recent trends in global politics, it might not be too unusual after all. The recent violence targeting migrants is nothing more than a manifestation of anti-immigrant sentiments sweeping across the globe, from Hungary to Brazil. Governments, facing much pressure from the populace, find it easier to scapegoat migrants than to deal with their own failures. South Africa is unique because despite being a nation built on the active disavowment of racism, her people’s animosity and resistance against migrants is the largest on the continent.

By: Maia Singham Despite the recent rain and cooler conditions in Australia, there are still over 50 fires burning in New South Wales and Victoria. This comes after record-breaking temperatures and almost 7 months of severe drought across the whole of Australia. Unfortunately, a state of emergency has been pronounced by the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) authorities - due to hot and windy conditions being forecasted to return to New South Wales this weekend, worsening the huge bushfires just south of the capital of Canberra. Conditions are expected to worsen, as the annual summer will reach it’s peak temperatures soon. NSW Rural Fire Service expects the fires to spread south-east, as the wind changes direction More than 27.2 million acres of land have been burnt across Australia, and this number is expected to rise. In addition, at least 33 people have been killed as a result of the fires, this includes four firefighters. The total number of animals affected by the fires could potentially be as high as a billion, with millions definitely dead. New South Wales - the state which has suffered the most damage - has almost 5 million hectares of land affected and more than 2,000 houses have been destroyed. In NSW alone, almost 1,600 firefighters are working to slow the fires down. Australian capital Cranberra’s airport has been shut down after one of the five fires raging near the city, approached the premises. In the state of Victoria, where more than 1.2 million hectares have been burnt, a state of disaster has been extended from the 2 - 11 of January. Meaning that it’s areas are eligible for emergency government aid. After the military stepped in to aid firefighters, troops, ships and aircraft have been sent to the region in order to relocate citizens or help firefighting efforts. South Australia has also sustained severe damage, especially in places like Kangaroo Island where 2 people have been killed. Along with this, an estimated 25 thousand koalas have perished on the island itself. Additionally, a third of the vines that fuel the Adelaide Hills win industry has been destroyed by the South Australia fires. The aftermath of the fires has also proved destructive, as air quality in places as far away as New Zealand have worsened as a result. According to AirVisual, Canberra’s air quality has been rated as the third-worst of all major cities globally. The government has also faced some controversy regarding their response to the fires. During December, prime minister of Australia, Scott Morrison faced serious backlash when on holiday in Hawaii during the first few weeks of the fires. He has also been accused of using the fires to gain support and only visiting affected areas as a publicity stunt.

By: Tara Lohani February 24th: Hundreds of thousands were addressed in the Motera stadium, in the state of Gujarat, Ahmedabad. In a spectacle thought to cost $13 million, Trump’s visit to India concluded with the discussion of trade and security, mainly over chinas expansionist policies in the Indian ocean. Why? U.S- Indian ties: In the wake of some of the worst ethnic violence India has faced in decades, the U.S Indian cooperation is seemingly unaffected. Trump’s first day in India consisted of him addressing over 100,000 people, praising Indian values for their tolerance, and the country’s peaceful democracy. Although defence deals were established, including an Indian navy plan to buy $3 billion worth of US helicopters, the two sides were unable to reach a solid solution regarding trade concessions. The Indian government seeks the restoration of trade concessions that President Trump withdrew last year, (GSP: Generalised system of preferences) as well as access to US markets. However, as China expands its control over the western pacific, the south china sea, and the Indian ocean, the two countries have chosen to implement maritime safety cooperation. The visit seemed to signal the converging interests of the two nations, fortifying their political relations. A U.S- China crisis could potentially be too huge, completely leaving India out, but would impact its economy. Chinas ascending ambition proves to be a major factor in strengthening The Indian-U.S strategic relations. But a tangible trade agreement continues to be avoided. The visit was marked by its extravagance and is thought to be a ‘favour returned’ by Modi, after trump hosted a “Howdy Modi” rally in Houston last year, in front of a primarily Indian- American crowd. The president’s visit to India may have been carried out in an effort to attract Indian American voters. Although only 16 % of Indian-American voters voted for trump in 2016, the display of friendship between the two leaders could boost trumps numbers in the polls.

By: Annika Singh Despite hopes that Mini Tuesday would even out the playing field after a surprising Super Tuesday race, Bernie Sanders continued to perform second to former Vice President Joe Biden in the primaries held on 10 March. Six states voted in what is now a two-person race (aside from Tulsi Gabbard — who has 2 delegates and no 2020 debate appearances due to the DNC’s requirements), and Biden was victorious four out of the six states. The most delegate-rich state that voted on Mini Tuesday — Michigan, with 125 voters — was a win for Biden, along with Michigan, Mississippi, and Missouri, allowing Biden to maintain his lead and expand the delegate margin between him and Sanders. Bernie Sanders won North Dakota (the least delegate-rich state on Mini Tuesday), with 14 delegates. Washington, one of the more important areas on Mini Tuesday, is yet to be 100% reported, although Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are estimated to be within a few thousand votes apart in the state. Following Mini Tuesday, however, Sanders announced his plans to stay in the race, and attend the two-person Democratic debate on Sunday. On March 12, Bernie Sanders was declared the victor of the California race — arguably, one of the biggest wins in the Democratic primary race.

By: Annika Singh Super Tuesday is part of the system that the Democratic party uses to decide on their nominee — the person to go against Trump in the November elections. On Tuesday, March 3rd, 14 states and 1 territory vote for their choice for the Democratic nominee — the process is similar to primaries and caucuses held before Super Tuesday (in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina). How does the process work? While the process may seem similar to federal election voting, it’s important to differentiate primaries and caucuses from the electoral college system. The electoral college system works on a ‘winner takes all’ principle — if a candidate gains a majority in a state, all the electoral college votes are given to that candidate. But that isn’t the case in Super Tuesday, where a certain number of delegates are assigned to each state and territory, and candidates are assigned delegates based on the percentage of the vote they receive (as long as it meets the minimum threshold of 15%). In July, at the Democratic National Convention, the candidate with a majority of the delegates gets the primary nomination. What’s interesting about Super Tuesday is that candidates like Pete Buttigieg have made gains, despite dropping out before March 3rd. Some states, like California and Texas, have early voting options, which means that some voters may have chosen Buttigieg as their candidate of choice before he dropped out. Things to look out for — California and Texas. Both states are delegate-heavy (California has 415 delegates and Texas has 228), and wins in either state give candidates a majority of the delegates each state has to offer — numbers upwards of a hundred delegates. Super Tuesday didn’t go so superbly for many of the Democratic candidates — here’s the breakdown of who won and who lost on one of the most significant days in the primary race. Winner: Joe Biden The former Vice President went from an unlikely contender to the frontrunner in the total delegate counts for the Democratic primary. Despite his low spending on advertisements in Super Tuesday states (he spent about $2.2 million on ads in Super Tuesday states) and poor performance early on in the race (he lacked focus in his campaign and was overcome by Sanders in nationwide Democratic primary polls), Biden’s South Carolina victory allowed him to win ten states on Super Tuesday (including Texas, the second most delegate-rich state offered on Super Tuesday, and Minnesota). His endorsement from Amy Klobuchar, a former rival, following his South Carolina win led to a victory in Minnesota — a Klobuchar campaign staff member confirmed that he called Klobuchar to thank her after his win in her home state. His surprising comeback has made this candidate a clear winner from Super Tuesday. Winner: Bernie Sanders There were some wins and some losses for Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday. He is now part of, along with Biden, what many see as a two-candidate race — a win, one that Warren does not share. Even though he didn’t win as much as Biden (four states compared to Biden’s ten), looking closer at the numbers, he seems to have won where it matters. While it’s true that four states doesn’t sound impressive, estimates place his delegate count less than a hundred away from Biden’s. The Sanders campaign can also add a California win to their list of victories — California is the most delegate-rich state, with 415 delegates at stake (Texas is second to California by number of delegates, with 228 delegates). Sanders definitely has to work hard to beat the Biden-Klobuchar-Buttigieg coalition, but he will have plenty of opportunities to reclaim the top spot in this race. Loser: Elizabeth Warren For a candidate who consistently performed well on the debate stage, in detailed and progressive policy plans, and in fundraising numbers, Warren’s performance in caucuses and primaries have been disappointing. Before Super Tuesday, she had consistently failed to achieve first-two placements in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina. But Warren supporters still had hope for a comeback on Super Tuesday. However, Warren didn’t win any states during Super Tuesday — an extremely prominent loss being her third-place finish in Massachusetts, her own state. Progressives, including Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, are calling for her exit from the primary race, forming a Sanders-Warren coalition to rival the centrist Biden-Klobuchar-Buttigieg one. Loser: Michael Bloomberg Bloomberg had placed all his bets on Super Tuesday — spending an estimated $215 million on advertisements in Super Tuesday states alone, and not participating in any of the caucuses or primaries before the day. But one of the most prominent lessons learned from Super Tuesday was that money doesn’t translate to voter support. Even though his spending on advertising was second-to-last in Super Tuesday states, Joe Biden gained the most, and Bloomberg, despite spending about half a billion dollars on his campaign in total, gained only one victory throughout his bid for primary: American Samoa. The territory has six delegates at stake in total, and when it comes to the federal election, American Samoa has no electoral college votes. Bloomberg, having not competed in any of the earlier caucuses or primaries, has only one win under his belt — and it’s a small one. Loser: Tulsi Gabbard No, she hasn’t dropped out yet — but that’s a common misconception. Tulsi Gabbard wasn’t on the Democratic debate stage in the final debate of 2019, and she hasn’t made an appearance for all of 2020. She won no delegates in any of the earlier caucuses and primaries, failing to meet the 15% threshold, which is why she failed to qualify for debates (obtaining one pledged delegate from Iowa, New Hampshire or Nevada automatically guaranteed candidates a spot on the stage, whether or not they fulfilled donor requirements or polling thresholds). Super Tuesday won Gabbard her first delegate in American Samoa (where she was born) — but just as it seemed that Gabbard had finally earned a spot on the debate stage, a DNC official confirmed on Tuesday night that the delegate requirements would ‘go up’. Overall, Tulsi Gabbard leaves voters asking the question — what is she still doing in the race?

By: Annika Singh, Nandini Krishnan The South Carolina primary ended with an expected Joe Biden win - but his impressive lead was surprising. Biden’s poor finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire were of no concern to him - he spent less than Klobuchar, Warren, and Buttigieg in South Carolina advertisements. Joe Biden’s victory, however, gives his campaign a new boost as the candidates approach Super Tuesday, where 1,357 delegates in 14 states and 1 US territory are at stake. Tom Steyer, on the other hand, the billionaire businessman who had yet to secure any delegates in any of the primaries or caucuses so far, spent far more on South Carolina ads than all of the other candidates combined (yes, even Bloomberg - Steyer is reported to have spent over $23 million in advertisements). However, the results placed Steyer in third place (at around 11%, the candidate received no delegates), a disappointing finish that caused him to exit the presidential race. Another candidate exited the race following a poor outcome in the primary: Pete Buttigieg dropped out on March 1st. After Buttigieg’s win in Iowa, his placements have only gotten worse in the following caucuses and primaries, leaving him in fourth place in the South Carolina primary. He acquired no delegates in South Carolina, which made the path forward to Super Tuesday difficult. Super Tuesday will mark Bloomberg’s debut in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, and leave room for any of the six candidates left to replace Bernie Sanders as the frontrunner in the total delegate counts.