Emerald political columnists Zach Moss and Alec Cowan share their thoughts on Donald J. Drumpf’s recent rally in Eugene.

36 days. There were 36 days between the previous two democratic debates, and for reference, there were only six days between the two debates before April 14th’s showdown. The last Republican debate was on March 10. These dramatic spans of silent time come amidst a growing tension between candidates, but also a growing tension between candidates and the media.

This political season has been ripe with opportunities for click-worthy news feeds, and the media at large has had many opportunities to twiddle their thumbs–that is, until this these last months of relative silence.

This lull comes from both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, as their campaigns decided to boycott their respective debates. Hillary Clinton decided that Sanders needed to take a better “tone” with her in the debates, stating that she wouldn’t participate in the NY debate until he promised to not speak as negatively towards her.

Trump stated that he had an important speech in front of an “important group of people,” which was true, but his underwhelming enthusiasm for rescheduling the debate could have been linked to his vocal distaste for Fox News’s Megyn Kelly.

When the Republican field was larger earlier in the season, several candidates also banded together to boycott a debate to protest the network’s seemingly unfair treatment of them, stating that their questions were based on immature reasonings and watered-down discussions.

“I think we have had enough debates,” Trump said in lieu of the canceled debate in Salt Lake City, Utah. “We have had 11 or 12 debates. I did really well on the last one. I think I have done well in all the debates… But I think we’ve had enough. How many times can the same people ask you the same question?”

Trump does have a point. Most of the Republican debates have devolved into shouting matches, or petty bickering about issues not even relevant to debate topics. Ted Cruz even protested to the moderator that their incessant assurance for the candidates to tackle each other was unfair.

Candidates have wielded their power throughout this debate season to domineer the media into playing by their rules, their schedules and their topics. They’ve shown the dependency that major news networks have when airing iconoclastic figures like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and the candidates have taken advantage when they have been able to.

“They can’t toy with me like they toy with everybody else,” Trump said in regards to Fox News. “So let them have their debate, and let’s see how they do with the ratings.”

The media has shown that they too are dependent on frontrunner participation, both for ratings and substance. According to Cnn Money, Fox averaged 25 million viewers last August during the first debate of the season with Trump, which smashed records. Even without Trump’s participation in future debates, topics swirled around his policies and influence.

Candidates understand the industry and have held hostage the work of earnest journalists, which in turn holds hostage the information available to voters.

Attending these debates is not required for participation in the election, but it is a wonder as to how they are not. It’s difficult to fathom a presidential race without a head-to-head matchup between candidates, because they show voters a rawness that builds a transparency in a world of attack ads and pre-written speeches. It humanizes candidates by making them vulnerable, which is what every voter needs to see, and that’s why so many tune in to see them.

What needs to happen, however, is a new mindset by both the candidates and the media at large. Debates should not be optional and held captive by minor discrepancies like candidate “tone” and moderator preference. Frontrunners have shown the ability to stifle opposition through their seemingly casual abandonment of debates, and that in itself discourages a transparency that voters are desperately searching for. The media too, however, needs to evaluate their own ability to speak not just to voters, but with them.

The bilingual Univision debate was a brave new start, as an entirely new audience was exposed to candidates in ways traditionally reserved for English-speakers.The effort the network took to communicate with their voters, and, in turn, to communicate their voters needs, should be the hallmark victory of this debate season.

With no more bouts to look forward to, the one thing voters need to understand is their power; they need to raise their voice to ensure that the candidates speak theirs.

Emerald political columnists Zach Moss and Alec Cowan discuss the April 26 primary and their thoughts on what lies ahead for the candidates.

This election season has brought in diverse political ideologies, drawing in large numbers of voters not just from the two staple parties, but from those who are unaffiliated and independent. Indeed, this season is the season of the often unheard and unrepresented.

These voters bring very different expectations, and considering two of the candidates’ slogans—”Make America Great Again” and the “A Political Revolution Is Coming”— they bring with them very different demands.

Enter the “Bernie or Bust” movement: a growing coalition of voters who refuse to vote Democrat should Bernie Sanders not win the nomination. For some, this means writing Sanders’ name on the ballot in protest and affirmation of Bernie’s revolutionary mindset, but for others, this means not voting at all.

Many people see Bernie Sanders as the progressive saint pushing to bring the Democratic Party back to true progressive values. His policies would shift the party back to the left after what many Democrat voters have felt is an increasingly corporatized and “Republican-lite” transition.

James Scolari, a photographer who was interviewed with Yahoo! News said, “To me, ‘Bernie or Bust’ means I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. And if that means I get a President Trump, I feel like he’ll be farther left than she would be anyway.”

For Bernie supporters who are outside of the Bernie or Bust movement like Ryan Moore, a member of the volunteer leadership team and co-chair of digital and social media at the local Lane County for Bernie organization, these sects are confusing.

“Personally, I’m very curious as to how people have this mindset,” Moore said. “Our position [at Lane County for Bernie] pretty much mirrors Bernie Sanders’ position. He has said multiple times that he will back the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, and he has called on his supporters to do the same.”

Others from around the country have also shared the belief that regardless of political affiliation, those supporting Bernie need to continue giving support to the nominee and practice their right to vote. Moore, however, understands how this is for some voters.

“Put yourselves in these people’s shoes,” Moore said. “Bernie’s campaign is a big tent campaign. A large portion of his supporters are not traditional Democrats. He’s drawing in independents and unaffiliated voters into the party, so, in some sense, it’s tough to say ‘vote Democrat’ because these aren’t traditional Democrats.”

Moore thinks that those across the aisle have made this a high-stake election for many citizen— both during the election and in the future presidency.

“As a gay man, I personally have so much at stake this election, and it’s vital that everyone who is pledging support to Bernie can carry that support through to the nominee,” Moore said. “Bernie himself is saying it benefits all of us to elect a Democrat … whether or not it’s him.”

Having Trump and Sanders in this election has brought in many voters that are distanced from the staple parties. Should these voters not succeed, it wouldn’t be surprising if they disappear as quickly as they arrived. What Moore proposes, however, is voting based on an opposition to the Republican Party, not necessarily in support of the Democratic Party.

This dilemma — whether to settle with a party or cast a protest vote — is a difficult one, and both hold merit. In reality, however, neither position is one that is conducive to the electorate process because neither actively support change in the broken electoral process.

Numerous analysts believe that Bernie and his policies will invariably find their way into the election and the presidency — but only if his supporters hold true to their claims and hold the presidency responsible, a legitimacy that can only be achieved by voting and becoming a constituent. Bernie Sanders’ enormous presence and popularity this season has been a protest in itself. His effect will be felt long after the race is finished — regardless of who is nominated.

Donald Trump is causing a civil war.

Defying the odds and political experts alike, Trump has amassed a considerable following and an astounding delegate count throughout his campaign success. What many Republicans thought would be a business blowhard making his latest publicity stunt has turned into a debacle that is shaking the GOP to its very foundation. Party leaders from around the nation have called for every option to stop Trump’s growing momentum.

Just what has Trump done to cause such a movement against him?

Experts around the nation have summarized Trump’s brand of Republicanism as the culmination of years of unchecked and dogmatic language against Obama and the Democratic Party. Others see his candid demeanor as profoundly revolutionary.

His refusal to speak “politically correctly” has turned a routine election into an intriguing, dramatic battle of laughable wits between his unique political style and an institution that many see as frustratingly gridlocked.

This dawn of Trumpism — defined by his candor and refusal to play by the traditional rules of politics — is asking the Republican party to accept a leader who they are not sure they can stand behind. His questionable condoning of violence and perceived racism is incompatible with Republicanism for many, while some see the growing masses behind him and believe his rise is inevitable.

Between these two ideologies, the Republican party is beginning to divide as officials align themselves under either Trump or the new Mitt Romney-led #NeverTrump coalition.

A Trump nomination can mean two things: the Republican Party endorses a man the public has called xenophobic, bigoted, racist and misogynistic, further marking their descent into a more polarized party; or they can choose to divide the party in hopes of reconstructing a more moderate but functional party.

As Lee Drutman from Vox reported, the United States has reached peak polarization, which somewhat explains the enthusiasm for populist figures like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Parties have adopted incommensurable stances on key issues and voter divisions are deeper than ever, resulting in a full governmental shutdown in 2013 that cost the country $24 billion as neither party wished to concede to the other.

Candidates promising productivity through Congress are tallying votes, which raises an interesting question: Can these radical nominees solve America’s partisan problem?

The dissension between Trump’s coalitions and the Republican base has forced the party to divide itself in hopes that it can find common ground between its own supporters. As Drutman surmises, this newfound diversity in ideologies will hopefully pressure the party to concede its staunch commitment to its traditional beliefs. This may force an acceptance of differing ideals between its own members, therefore broadening the base beliefs of the party and allowing for more opportunity for cooperation with members of the opposite party that share the same beliefs.

In a nutshell, this division cutting the staple parties in half may very well be the unifier for the two historic rivals — in order for the system to be built back up, it must first be torn down.

For many voters, seeing Trump for more than his uncouth attitude is impossible — let alone seeing him as something that the American government needs. Sanders, though less divisive, is creating a similar phenomenon on the Democratic side, as his venture to the far left is raising questions as to just what being a Democrat means.

It’s raucous, unsettling, delectably entertaining and best of all, it leans towards a future of American government that could be bright and hopefully absent of the gridlock besmirching the Obama administration’s partisan tenure.

Regardless, what Trump has become (and what Sanders has become on the other side) is a manifestation of ideals, and this is what scares the parties: they present actual actions on rhetoric that has largely been angry and imaginative. While the future is continuing to be analyzed, the present brand that the nominees have left on the party image is irreparable, and that “damage” has the potential to be the solution to the partisan problem, if not in this election, then in races to come.

By going against the grain, Sanders and Trump are intriguing voters in ways that candidates have not done for quite a while, and this intrigue will hopefully lead voters to expand the policies of their parties and open up discussions across the aisle. After all, there’s only one other approach to be afraid of, and it’s already so familiar — politics as usual.

This election will be the first in eight years in which a black candidate will not be receiving the nomination for either the Republican or Democratic party. As President Obama is poised to leave office, his historic run ending in what seems like a torturous close, minority Americans are left to look at the monumental feat they’ve accomplished and question where to go next.

Comprising more than half of the 2008 democratic primary voters, black voters especially have found what Slate writer Jamelle Bouie has called a “newly activated” voice in the polls, as Obama’s dedication to reaching the black community fostered a consistent and dedicated voter base in both of his campaigns and in the current voting pool.

The influence of this has been felt so far, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s proclaimed “southern firewall” of black voters has propelled her to win up to 90 percent of black votes in most southern states, where black voters comprise significant portions of the overall vote.

This discrepancy is what perhaps led Senator Bernie Sanders to emphatically proclaim “We will end institutional racism” during the demorcatic debate in Flint, Michigan, as he continued to describe the influence of Black Lives Matters and white privilege in his monologue.

“When you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto,” Sanders said. “You don’t know what it’s like to be poor. You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled on the street and dragged out of a car.”

The University of Oregon has seen its own Black Lives Matter influence on campus, as the Black Student Task Force held a rally this past November for solidarity with the movement because the racial environment at the university has led students to feel like it is difficult to “succeed and grow.”

The national discontent with this country’s racial environment seems to mirror the university’s, as both Sanders and Clinton have had speeches interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters in an effort to spread the influence of black voices in politics.

Since such encounters both candidates have been forced to take a stance on the growing movement—Sanders has even hired a leading figure in the movement to his staff.

Both were asked, “Do black lives matter?” on the national debate stage earlier this election season. Sanders’ statement in Michigan has just continued the bold, blunt rhetoric of the election thus far. The positive result of this conversation is that it shows the willingness of candidates to address race and racism without the feeling that a minority candidate requires it.

Many critics of Obama’s campaign believed that the numbers of black voters he attracted in his two presidential runs would die off once the historic factor of his election had faded. However, this election, although drawing in smaller numbers of primary voters, has shown that black voters encompass just as much influence as they did when Obama was running.

But the nature of the conversation has changed dramatically.

Compare both candidates websites: Clinton’s features more keyword topics like the “school-to-prison-pipeline” and “mass incarceration.” It is much more traditional in the sense that it formalizes systemic racial issues and presents them in a political vernacular.

Sanders’ racial justice page, conversely, immediately opens up with the words “Physical Violence,” and beneath this banner is the names of 14 men and women that were unarmed and killed by police in the past several years. This is perhaps representative of the nature of racial politics in this election, as the formalized political jargon has given way to blunt, passionate rhetoric.

While Sanders’ has been able to speak about racial violence with an impassioned voice, this approach has not earned him the votes that he will need to overtake Hillary. One lingering hope is that his willingness to speak about race in a way that transcends typical politics will remain in not just this election, but future campaigns as well.