At once destroyers of worlds and lazy slackers who won’t move out of our parents’ houses, we’re all-purpose punching bags for society at large.
We’re also ferocious killers. Did you know that we’re responsible for the death of consumerism, the American Dream, Applebee’s, marriage, boobs, beer, home ownership, the oil industry, and the future of humanity itself? Not bad, right? With so many contradictions, we’re what Winston Churchill might have described as a “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”
With no clear start and no clear end, the term “millennial” has mostly become a stand-in for “youths” in angry “kids these days”-style news stories.
There’s just one major problem: We’re not kids.
Pew Research defines a millennial as anyone born between the years 1981 and 1996. In 2018, that’s most everyone age 21 to 37.
Other sources might have slightly different start and end dates for the qualifying range, but the point is, we’re not pre-teens. And yet, the way the label of millennial is used, it certainly gives that impression.
When AL.com asked readers if we should elect more millennials to Congress, responses demonstrated just how much people misunderstand what the term means.
While those in favor of more millennials in Congress mentioned the benefits of having more diverse representation, those opposed clung to tired and factually inaccurate stereotypes.
(According to Pew Research, only 13% of people aged 30-34 live with a parent.)
(Parental health care expires at age 26, and anyone whose income meets a certain minimum must pay taxes regardless of age.)
In all three of these examples, it’s clear respondents don’t have an accurate demographic understanding of what a millennial is.
Author Summer Brennan came up with a really interesting idea aimed at getting people to accurately understand the term “millennial.”
Every time you see a headline that mentions “millennials,” she suggests, consider whether it’d sound any more ridiculous if you replaced it with “adults under 40.” In the examples above, for instance, the implication that adults under 40 don’t have their own health care, pay taxes, or have any life experience sounds a little absurd.
Your reaction to the experiment might help determine whether or not you’re viewing “millennial” as a group of young- to middle-aged adults with diverse views and experiences or as a buzzword loaded with years of negative press. (And yes, yes, I know, Pew’s classification puts the cap on millennials at 37, not 40, but as I said, this can vary.)
Let’s take a look at what a few other “millennial” headlines would look like if we used Brennan’s trick. Do they seem a little silly?
The Economist recently asked why millennials weren’t buying diamonds. Think about it rationally, and you’ll realize it could have something to do with the fact that we entered the workforce at roughly the same time that the entire economy was in total free fall and haven’t really recovered.
When you swap the headline to read “adults under 40,” this becomes much more clear:
Inc. put together an explainer for people trying to understand why millennials are so “entitled.” Swap in “adults under 40,” and suddenly that headline just looks poorly thought out.
The Guardian told its readers that La Croix sparkling water was virtually a religion to millennials. Reframing that headline reveals it to be an odd, unfounded claim.
This thought exercise can be applied to all sorts of issues, not just debates about whether millennials are the worst.
The way we frame conversation plays a big role in how we view the world. If specific words and phrases didn’t have the power to change minds, marketing firms would have no reason to exist.
For instance: In 2009, political strategist Frank Luntz wrote a memo encouraging Republican members of Congress to change their vocabulary in order to derail Democrats’ efforts to pass health care legislation. Luntz found that the public generally favored health care reform, so in order for Republicans to successfully oppose it, he urged them to instead refer to health care reform as the “Washington takeover” of America’s health system.
While the Democrats’ law was eventually passed, Luntz’s rhetoric generated a lot of confusion around the health care debate that year. That confusion made it a political liability for Democrats and ultimately led to a thrashing during the 2010 midterm elections.
The same concept applies to the immigration debate. When you replace innocuous terms like “undocumented immigrant,” “asylum-seeker,” or “refugee” with far more loaded words like “illegal immigrants” or the even more dehumanizing “illegals,” the debate shifts again. As pundits switch out adjectives for buzzwords, it becomes harder to remember that these discussions are about actual human beings.
The “millennials” vs. “adults under 40” trick is a doorway to untangling a lot of the learned rhetoric we’ve been taught to use on a number of issues.
Next time you read a story that evokes a powerful emotion, take a deep breath and mentally swap out buzzwords to see if you still feel the same.
Governments should consider advising people to abstain entirely, say authors
Even the occasional drink is harmful to health, according to the largest and most detailed research carried out on the effects of alcohol, which suggests governments should think of advising people to abstain completely.
The uncompromising message comes from the authors of the Global Burden of Diseases study, a rolling project based at the University of Washington, in Seattle, which produces the most comprehensive data on the causes of illness and death in the world.
Alcohol, says their report published in the Lancet medical journal, led to 2.8 million deaths in 2016. It was the leading risk factor for premature mortality and disability in the 15 to 49 age group, accounting for 20% of deaths.
Current alcohol drinking habits pose “dire ramifications for future population health in the absence of policy action today”, says the paper. “Alcohol use contributes to health loss from many causes and exacts its toll across the lifespan, particularly among men.”
Most national guidelines suggest there are health benefits to one or two glasses of wine or beer a day, they say. “Our results show that the safest level of drinking is none.”
The study was carried out by researchers at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), who investigated levels of alcohol consumption and health effects in 195 countries between 1990 to 2016. They used data from 694 studies to work out how common drinking was and from 592 studies including 28 million people worldwide to work out the health risks.
Moderate drinking has been condoned for years on the assumption that there are some health benefits. A glass of red wine a day has long been said to be good for the heart. But although the researchers did find low levels of drinking offered some protection from heart disease, and possibly from diabetes and stroke, the benefits were far outweighed by alcohol’s harmful effects, they said.
Drinking alcohol was a big cause of cancer in the over-50s, particularly in women. Previous research has shown that one in 13 breast cancers in the UK were alcohol-related. The study found that globally, 27.1% of cancer deaths in women and 18.9% in men over 50 were linked to their drinking habits.
In younger people globally the biggest causes of death linked to alcohol were tuberculosis (1.4% of deaths), road injuries (1.2%), and self-harm (1.1%).
In the UK, the chief medical officer Sally Davies has said there is no safe level of drinking, but the guidance suggests that drinkers consume no more than 14 units a week to keep the risks low. Half a pint of average-strength lager contains one unit and a 125ml glass of wine contains around 1.5 units.
While the study shows that the increased risk of alcohol-related harm in younger people who have one drink a day is small (0.5%), it goes up incrementally with heavier drinking: to 7% among those who have two drinks a day (in line with UK guidance) and 37% for those who have five.
One in three, or 2.4 billion people around the world, drink alcohol, the study shows. A quarter of women and 39% of men drink. Denmark has the most drinkers (95.3% of women, and 97.1% of men). Pakistan has the fewest male drinkers (0.8%) and Bangladesh the fewest women (0.3%). Men in Romania and women in Ukraine drink the most (8.2 and 4.2 drinks a day respectively), while women in the UK take the eighth highest place in the female drinking league, with an average of three drinks a day.
“Alcohol poses dire ramifications for future population health in the absence of policy action today. Our results indicate that alcohol use and its harmful effects on health could become a growing challenge as countries become more developed, and enacting or maintaining strong alcohol control policies will be vital,” said the report’s senior author, Prof Emmanuela Gakidou.
“Worldwide we need to revisit alcohol control policies and health programmes, and to consider recommendations for abstaining from alcohol. These include excise taxes on alcohol, controlling the physical availability of alcohol and the hours of sale, and controlling alcohol advertising. Any of these policy actions would contribute to reductions in population-level consumption, a vital step toward decreasing the health loss associated with alcohol use.”
Dr Robyn Burton, of King’s College London, said in a commentary in the Lancet that the conclusions of the study were clear and unambiguous. “Alcohol is a colossal global health issue and small reductions in health-related harms at low levels of alcohol intake are outweighed by the increased risk of other health-related harms, including cancer,” she wrote.
“There is strong support here for the guideline published by the Chief Medical Officer of the UK who found that there is ‘no safe level of alcohol consumption’.”
Public health policy should be to prioritise measures to reduce the numbers who drink through price increases, taxation, or setting the price according to the strength of the drink (minimum unit pricing), followed by curbs on marketing and restricting the places where people can buy alcohol.
“These approaches should come as no surprise because these are also the most effective measures for curbing tobacco-related harms, another commercially mediated disease, with an increasing body of evidence showing that controlling obesity will require the same measures,” she wrote.
Ben Butler, a Drinkaware spokesperson, said: “This new study supports existing evidence about the harms associated with alcohol. Our research shows that over a quarter of UK adults typically exceed the low risk drinking guidelines and are running the risk of serious long term illnesses.”
But David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, said the data showed only a very low level of harm in moderate drinkers and suggested UK guidelines were very low risk.
“Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention,” he said. “There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.”
As a lifelong pro-wrestling fan, I have often received a lot of shtick for enjoying the over-the-top sport/entertainment product that is the WWE. If I had a dollar for every time somebody asked me, “Don’t you know it’s fake?”, then I’d be a millionaire. Like seriously, I figured it out at the age of seven – it’s not hard.
However, despite the relentless mocking throughout high school, I couldn’t help but keep watching. WWE’s weekly product is very often poorly scripted, repetitive, childish, and, at best, average – but I simply cannot stop watching, because I am eagerly lying in wait for the next amazing moment they deliver. Moments that make me “mark out” like an over-zealous teenager once again.
Moments like Mankind being thrown off the top of Hell in a Cell or Stone Cold drenching Vince McMahon with a beer truck or amazing matches like Undertaker versus Shawn Michaels – they make dredging through the awful moments worth it. And one of the greatest moments in WWE history came in 1997 when fans saw the debut of Kane at the Badd Blood: In Your House PPV.
Check out that monstrous debut in the video below:
If you’ve never heard of Kane, let me give you a quick summary of his career: He is the half-brother of The Undertaker, hails from “Parts Unknown”, was physically scarred as a child by a house fire that was caused by The Undertaker which also saw the demise of their parents, the injuries he received caused him to wear a mask his entire life, until his was forced to unmask in 2002 when it turned out his scars were just “psychological” (?!?!?). He is a former World Champion, Tag Team Champion, Intercontinental Champion, Hardcore Champion, Money in the Bank winner, and he once electrocuted the boss’ son’s testicles with a car battery.
Oh, and then there’s the whole ‘Katie-Vick’ storyline… but, but we don’t talk about that.
But what really makes me proud to be a wrestling fan are the moments when the wrestlers transcend WWE and make an impact in the real world. For example, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is the highest paid actor in Hollywood, but his career started in WWE, where he was one of the most iconic performers in the company’s history. He’s so famous now, that many people are oblivious to his past as a wrestler.
Hell, even the current president of the USA is a WWE Hall of Famer!
Now, in yet another example of a wrestler transcending WWE, Kane – real name Glenn Jacobs – has just been elected Mayor by the people of Knox County.
The quite unbelievable announcement comes less than three weeks after his last match, which saw him reunite with Team Hell No tag-team partner, Daniel Bryan, in a losing effort against WWE Smackdown Tag Team Champions, The Bludgeon Brothers.
Running as a Republican, Jacobs defeated Democratic candidate Linda Haney by a landslide 31,739 votes (67%) to 16,611.
As of the 2010 census, the Knox County population was 432,226.
Check out Jacob’s emotional victory speech in the video below:
When Jacobs first announced his intention to run for mayor, he revealed that he was met with “pretty astounding laughter”, but admitted that it was this doubt that “made [him] want it even more.”
“In my primary, I only won by 23 votes in that one, so every vote really does count and I want to make sure I get as many as I possibly can,” Jacobs told WATE 6. “Since May, we’ve been knocking on doors, continuing that. We’ve also continued the process of meeting with department heads, school board, county commissioners, that kind of thing.”
The WWE – Jacob’s home for the last 23 years – have congratulated the WWE Supersar in a statement, writing: “Kane has been elected Mayor of Knox County, Tenn., tonight, capping a path to office that began over a year ago for the former WWE Champion.”
The 51-year-old’s victory sees him become Knox County’s 29th mayor, and amongst his agenda, he promised the people tax cuts along with improvements to education and infrastructure. He will officially assume the position on September 1st.
It’s safe to say that Glenn Jacobs is going to be pretty busy in an office for the next few years, so who knows if we’ll ever see Kane lace-up a pair of boots ever again.
(CNN)Almost everyone thought he would lose. Clinton did. Her vaunted political operatives did. The pollsters did. The #NeverTrump Republicans did. For all his bluster and bold predictions of victory, Trump himself had been worrying all day. He kept pressing aides for information, but they were worried, too. Even his internal models showed him falling short of the 270 electoral votes needed to win.
Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from CNN’s book, “Unprecedented.” Order your copy today at cnn.com/book and explore CNN’s coverage of “A race like no other” at cnn.com/unprecedented
But as the night went on, strange and unexpected numbers flashed across the television screens of America. Early returns put Trump ahead by 3 points in Florida, 10 in Ohio and North Carolina. Virginia was not supposed to be competitive, but Trump had an early lead there, too.
“There isn’t panic,” a Clinton aide said around 8 p.m. Then it was 9, and 10, and the numbers held in Florida and Ohio, and now Trump was leading in Michigan and Wisconsin. Could he crack the Democrats’ so-called Blue Wall in the industrial Midwest? Clinton’s aides doubted it. They thought he’d missed his chance in Michigan by not campaigning much there until the end. Clinton was so confident about Wisconsin that she never campaigned there at all. She was not so sure about Pennsylvania, which is why she’d hit Philadelphia three times in three days and visited Pittsburgh the previous morning. But now, even in Pennsylvania, her lead narrowed as the night went on. Five points, 4, 3. Something was happening out there, a seismic disruption whose foreshocks nearly all the experts had ignored. By 10:04 p.m., Dow futures had plunged by nearly 500 points. And the wildest campaign in modern history appeared to have one more astonishing twist.
As it turned out, the experts’ combined wisdom was no match for that of Dave Calabro, also known as Jersey Dave, a 57-year-old South Philadelphian and Trump supporter who thought America had lost its way. He’d acquired his nickname by selling Eagles jerseys in sports bars to provide for his family. He did not always drink beer, but when he did, he usually drank Coors Light. He yelled BLUE LIVES MATTER to cops on Broad Street. He used to love Bruce Springsteen, but now he thought the Boss had disgraced himself by supporting Clinton. Jersey Dave Calabro said it that summer, and kept saying it until Election Day: Trump would carry Pennsylvania, which no Republican had done since 1988, and he would be the next American president.
“The guy never loses,” Calabro said.
There were two Americas in 2016. One had been advancing for a long time. One had been retreating. And on November 8, Trump and his army of Jersey Dave Calabros found a way to reverse the trend.
The two Americas were nearly a century in the making. They resulted from women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, the gay rights movement and a Hispanic population that increased by roughly 50 million in the last fifty years. These changes had two things in common: They gave power to those who previously had little or none. And they diminished the supremacy of straight white men.
Clinton’s America was a coalition of these historically disadvantaged groups, along with their white male allies. Year by year, it seemed to align more closely with large corporations and the global elite. It was urban, ascendant, seemingly unstoppable.
Its inhabitants saw the last hundred years as a good start, an unfinished march of societal progress. Yes, the nation had same-sex marriage, an African-American president and a number of female chief executives, but this America still felt itself chafing against systemic inequality. Did racism, sexism and homophobia still exist? Of course they did. Clinton’s America wanted them eradicated.
Trump’s America drew in some women and minorities. But much of its energy came from white male grievance. Factories had been closing for decades. Many manufacturing jobs had moved overseas or given way to automation. As wages stagnated, more and more blue-collar men felt themselves working hard and going nowhere. They felt abandoned by the new information economy, swindled by Washington politicians, stifled by the new cultural orthodoxy. Certain men of Trump’s America were thrilled when he said, “Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote.” These men were tired of being blamed for the sins of their fathers, sick of hearing the phrase white guy thrown around like an insult. Wasn’t that racism, too? Couldn’t there be sexism against men? They felt as if the people of Clinton’s America had overtaken them somehow, probably by cheating.
“I know I’m the projection for many of those wounded men,” Clinton once said, as quoted in “Hillary’s Choice,” a 1999 book by Gail Sheehy. “I’m the boss they never wanted to have. I’m the wife they neverthe wife who went back to school and got an extra degree and a job as good as theirs….It’s not me, personally, they hateit’s the changes I represent.”
A year before Clinton’s campaign officially began, two allies were emailing about strategy. “In fact, I think running on her gender would be the SAME mistake as 2008, ie having a message at odds with what voters ultimately want,” Robby Mook, her eventual campaign manager, wrote in a message later hacked and released by WikiLeaks. “She ran on experience when voters wanted change….It’s also risky because injecting gender makes her candidacy about HER and not the voters and making their lives better.”
But Clinton’s America wanted to rally behind the woman who could bring societal progress to its next logical step. If she won, they would all win, at least symbolically, and so the campaign adopted the slogan I’m With Her. On the day she testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October 2015, online appeals using this slogan helped her raise $133,000 in a single hour.
“I don’t want you to vote for me because I’m a woman; I want you to vote for me on the merits,” she said that year. “But one of my merits is that I’m a woman.”
Early in 2016, her campaign chairman, John Podesta, received an email that was later released by WikiLeaks. “I’m a dinosaur to the Democratic Party…white, southern, veteran, male senior,” wrote Dana Folsom of Augusta, Georgia. “…I would like to have my ilk shown a tiny bit of respect by the leaders of the Hillary campaign.”
“You’ve earned that respect and we’ll try to show it,” Podesta replied.
Was Clinton’s America big enough for men like Dana Folsom? He did vote for her in the Georgia primary. She added other slogans, such as Fighting for Us and Stronger Together. Still, many blue-collar men were suspicious. Fighting for Us sounded like fighting for the people who were not them, rallying those people against them, and Stronger Together still evoked the progressive union against the way things used to be.
“I’m with you,” Trump said, and they liked that more than I’m With Her. Her aides marveled at the reams of negative stories about Trump that had no effect. Decorated generals and establishment Republicans joined forces with Clinton to tell the men of Trump’s America they were making a huge mistake. But the men ignored the message, because they distrusted the messengers, and because, like Trump, they hated being told no. These rugged individualists who felt their country being stolen were not about to “listen to reason” from those they suspected of committing the theft. No, you can’t elect someone like Trump? Their campaign slogan might as well have been Yes I Can.
You can’t vote for a man who insults women and immigrants and Muslims and people with disabilities.
Yes I can.
You can’t vote for a man who boasts about sexually assaulting women.
Yes I can.
You can’t give the nuclear codes to a man who might blow up the world because someone looked at him sideways.
* * *
Over the last four years I’ve asked thousands of people from around the world about the absolute craziest shit that has ever happened to them. I’ve interviewed jaded mercenaries, rape and sexual slavery survivors, terrorists, garbage collectors, Nigerian internet scammers, and just about every kind of sex worker you can dream up (and many kinds you never could). Their stories have shocked and amazed millions of people. But throughout hundreds of articles, one thing has bugged me:
The best part of a good story is the storyteller’s voice.
Some people are natural storytellers — they could talk about their trip to the grocery store and make it sound fascinating. But everyone, absolutely everyone on this planet, is capable of telling a great story about something insane that they witnessed with their own eyes. Doctors and nurses, for example, are too busy learning how to save lives to waste time taking a “how to tell a funny story” class. But if you buy one a beer, they’ll be full of incredible stories that only they can tell properly.
That brings us to Cracked Gets Personal, the new podcast we’re launching today, on this very page you’re reading right now. Our first episode is full of crazy stories from emergency medical workers. We’ve got harrowing tales of stupid injuries, heartbreaking disaster stories, and countless sagas about dumb people shoving things inside themselves. Like, so many things. So sit back, relax, enjoy the butt stuff, and then join us again next week. The first 2 episodes of season one of Cracked Gets Personal are available now and the remaining 8 will release every Wednesday until mid-October, and while I don’t want to spoil anything, I think it’s safe to say that there’s more butt stuff on the horizon.
Check out episode 2 of Cracked Gets Personal here, where my co-host Brandon Johnson and I talk to three former pain pill addicts about the opioid epidemic.
Click here to subscribe to Cracked Gets Personal on Apple Podcasts or search for it your podcast app of choice.
Not even the president says no to cheap noodles.
Barack Obama had dinner with chef Anthony Bourdain on Tuesday at a “hole-in-the-wall” restaurant in Hanoi, Vietnam, the BBC reports. The dinner was filmed for an upcoming episode of Bourdain’s CNN show “Parts Unknown,” which returns for its eighth season this fall.
The menu included bún ch, a traditional spread of pork, broth, rice noodles and greens.
“Low plastic stool, cheap but delicious noodles, cold Hanoi beer,” Bourdain tweeted. “The president’s chopstick skills are on point,” he added on Instagram.
The total bill, according to Bourdain, was just $6. “I picked up the check,” he announced.
The noodle dinner comes during Obama’s three-day trip to Vietnam.
We’ve heard of Madison Beer a lot. She’s reportedly some Justin Bieber protegee.
She’s too a vocalist and has been working at it for a while, but this is the first ballad of hers we’ve really liked!
It takes time to find yourself as an master, develop and get it right!
This is not pop. This is more Kehlani or SZA!
If you did that, then you will enjoy Dead above!
Portnow’s now-infamous contemplates were a response to reviewers saying that there wasn’t enough female illustration at the Grammys Sunday night; Alessia Cara was the only dame to win a solo Grammy during the ceremony. He applied the burden of the status of women becoming a bigger part of the music industry on women instead of recognise the larger question of institutional sexism that makes it is very difficult to even break into the industry.
Pink, however, was having none of it. She posted a handwritten document to Twitter explaining just how long dames have stepped up in the music manufacture( answer: since the beginning of age ); she even used two different colored pens to highlight her point.
She wasn’t the only creator who also spoke out against Portnow’s statements. Sheryl Crow suggested that the Grammys return to female and male categories for registering artists.
Beer Pong Champ
A recent study from USC Annenberg demonstrates that girls are severely underrepresented in the music industry, with women drawing up only 9.3 percent of Grammy campaigners in the top five categories–record of its first year, album of the year, carol of its first year, good new master, and creator of the year–over the past five years old. Reviewers have also pointed to the Grammys reportedly not offering Album of the Year nominee Lorde a solo rendition despite establishing chances to various of her fellow male campaigners. Likewise, Pink was nominated for better pa solo conduct alongside Kelly Clarkson, Lady Gaga, Kesha, and Ed Sheeran. Sheeran was the only male nominees but he won the category–and he didn’t show up to accept it.
BOOM: Yale classmate tries dunking on Brett Kavanaugh over brew culminates up CLEARING him of sexually aggressive behaviour instead
Lynne Brookes, a classmate of SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh from his periods as a Yale undergrad. Ms. Brookes said that Judge Kavanaugh was ” blatantly lying” in his testimony on Thursday about drinking in college, and since she’s a Republican we should totally believe her:
WASHINGTON — Sen. Kelly Ayotte( R-N.H .) “re coming out” in favor of the Obama administration’s effort to cut carbon pollution by power plants on Sunday, bucking Senate leadership that has worked to derail emission reductions plan.
The Obama administration announced final regulations on emissions from both new and existing power plant in August. Dubbed the Clean Power Plan, the rules are part of the administration’s large thrust to restrain radiations that effect climate change. The Clean Power Plan has faced opposition from numerous republican legislators.
In supporting the rules, Ayotte cited the run her position has already done to reduce emissions.
“After carefully reviewing this plan and talking with members of our business community, environmental groups , and other stakeholders, I have decided to support the Clean Power Plan to address climate change through clean vigour answers that will protect our environment, ” she said in a statement on Sunday. “New Hampshire is already well on its way to meet the goals of the Clean Power Plan through positive steps it has already taken. I will carefully monitor implementation of the plan to make sure there is sufficient flexibility for New Hampshire to meet its goals and that the schedule does not have an adverse impact on Granite State energy costs.”
Ayotte noted that her state is a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, such partnerships of Northeastern states to reduce their emissions, and “is on track to meet its goals.” She also pointed out that New Hampshire-based occupations such as beer make Smuttynose and apparel firm Timberland support the power plant plan.
While Ayotte has received a mediocre rating from environmentalists since penetrating the Senate in 2011, she has taken a moderate stance on climate change issues. She was one of precisely five Republican senators to endorse committee stage amendments earlier this year stating that climate change is real and “human activity significantly contributes” to it.
Ayotte is up for re-election in 2016 and expects to face a tough objection. New Hampshire’s popular Democratic governor, Maggie Hassan, announced earlier this month that she intends to run against the incumbent senator.