1. The OMB director states that the reason is the decline in the cost of healthcare due to programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
2. It will decrease the size of the deficits, as less money is spent on healthcare and more can be invested in things that will allow the economy to grow.
3. The percentage of money that will be spent on defense is not typical to most Democratic ideals, which shows the president's desire to compromise. Obama would like to use more money on things that will lead to economic growth, like education.
4. A pro would be the lowering of the deficit, which is desired by both the Republican and Democratic parties. Also, I am a fan of the president's desire to improve early childhood education, as education is the best way to ensure success as a nation. A con is that Congress is not very agreeable with the president, so they may not pass some of the new ideas.
Obama has made an executive order raising the minimum wage for federal employees in an effort to influence Congress into doing the same for all of society. A limitation is that he does not have Congressional approval and this shows that the idea is not a widely backed one in the government. Some people think he is overusing his power and should not have done this. This executive order is a rather expensive one, so people are worried about the cost. The White House has avoided any executive orders with gay rights because in the past, it has not been well received by a large part of the nation.
Video on msnbc.com: The age-old practice of politicians re-drawing Congressional districts to find friendly voters, or, gerrymandering, has allowed members of the House of Representatives from both sides of the aisle to stay in power regardless of...
Gerrymandering is where districts are redistributed so one party has favor in a certain area and can maintain control and majority. The name comes from founding father Gerry, who drew a contorted district in order to get more votes. These districts are not uniform; they are often incongruous shapes that make no logical sense. The House is reapportioned every ten years when the Census takes place. A potential solution is to focus on geography and population density in drawing districts, as to maintain a level of fairness. This could potentially harm an incumbent, as the districts would not be drawn to favor them. The public opinion would be more level and accurately understood because the maps would be unbiased. And yes, they both seem to distort the way the public actually feels.
1. It is clear that a candidate who can handle the stresses of running and that has a good track record in the past is desired. The author sort of denounces candidates who suffer from negativities in the past, and implies that they should be shunned. The article also stresses the importance of being well known by the populace. It also appears that candidates who are well funded are more desirable, as it plays a critical role in the election process. In sum, both parties are looking for the same thing–a well rounded candidate who is already widely regarded as a good person to be in office.
2. To me, Sabato kind of disregards the platforms of the candidates and focuses instead on their impressions upon the people. It is likely that Sabato chooses not to focus on the platforms as much because they are still on the fence, and can change at a moment's notice, such as John McCain's sudden change of opinion regarding offshore drilling in the 2008 election when he learned of the public opinion surrounding it.
3. When Sabato refers to this, he is implying that the campaign process is both never over for those who are elected, and for people who want to run, it begins the second they were born. Elected officials constantly worry about their approval ratings, and if they are bad, they are unlikely to be reelected. Similarly, for someone new in the political process, anything in their past could be held against them. Also, it seems that the moment an election is over, people start campaigning for the next one in four years. A concern with this is the people in the government worrying too much about the opinion of others instead of working for the good of the people.
4. I believe this to be an advantage. This gives the population a chance to do some research and become accustomed to the leader's ideals. However, this also gives people time to do research in a less positive way, such as digging up old secrets from the past and using them against the leader. It really goes both ways and depends on the candidate and the current situation.
Texas remains a Republican-leaning state because its white residents are becoming increasingly Republican and its large Hispanic population, though solidly Democratic, is less so than Hispanics nationally.
1. A party realignment would be very useful to Democrats, as Texas has long been a red state. The recent insurgence of mostly Democratic Hispanics may provide enough push to change the deep red center to a more calming blue. This relates to minority majority because Texas is becoming dominated by minorities and whites are no longer above the 51% mark, which could ultimately change the political leaning of the entire state.
2. As with the rest of the nation, Hispanics generally lean toward the Democratic side. Meanwhile, white people tend to lean toward the Republican party.
3. Hispanics have some of the worst voter turnouts in the nation. This means that regardless of the percentage of Hispanics that are Democratic, not all of them are registered to vote, and therefore it is unlikely that the push will be strong enough.
4. Gallup conducted a poll with a random sampling of the population, occupying all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 50% were landline and 50% were cellular devices, so it is appropriate to infer that it reached many different income brackets.
1. Conservatives have consistently been favored in Roberts' court cases. The court has had numerous pre-business decisions and there has been an effort to sway liberals to go on a more conservative route.
2. A precedent is the way that a case was ruled in the past. The precedent that has been set is that the government will be pro-business. He has definitely put a lot of limits on campaign finance reform, as well, setting a new precedent.
3. He will meet with the liberal leaning judges in order to try and reach some agreements; more work will be done and the president will have a higher success rate with his ideas.
4. Justice Kennedy is the "swing vote" because the amount of liberal and conservative judges he has are equal. He is moderate.
5. There is no bias in this article because it is all factual and legitimate. There is no opinion, just presentation of fact.
The NRA is using their influence and e-mailing their opinions to the senators. They don't believe it is the responsibility of the surgeon general to influence others about gun control.
The NRA has an influence on votes. If the Senators disagree with the ideas of the majority, then they can lose their positions. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people in republican states to maintain their opinions without fear.
The president is responsible for the appointment.
Congress could research the effects of guns to increase the validity of their opinions and influence others. They could also make sure to change their campaign strategies in order to ensure that people trust them.
1. The Constitutional basis is found in Article II, Section I, Clause II, which specifies the number of electoral college members needed. It was brought about because at the time the Constitution was written, information was not really spread accurately, so a popular vote would not be too fair. However, a vote by Congress would not be either because it placed too much power in the federal government. Thus, a compromise was formed, resulting in the electoral college.
2. Candidates campaign more toward the swing states because they are the states that aren't definitively Republican or Democrat. Safe states are states that almost always go one way, such as Idaho always voting Republican. Candidates do not push as hard for these states because they're "safe". Candidates also campaign more toward states with a large population, because that results in obtaining more electoral votes.
3. The House of Representatives is called upon to resolve the issue; they vote on it.
4. Al Gore won just over 50 percent of the popular vote, while Bush gained less than 50 percent. However, Bush won in the electoral college and was named President. Many people believed this usurped the views of the public and was not an accurate portrayal of the public interest.
5. No, I think a more pluralistic system would work. The two party system seems antiquated and I think that runoff elections would be fine in the result of no candidate receiving a majority. With the amount of party dealignment in the nation, it makes sense to allow more than a two party system and to pay more attention to the third parties.
More Americans today are satisfied with where the nation stands on acceptance of gays and lesbians, federal taxes, and healthcare availability than were satisfied in 2001. But Americans' satisfaction with the economy has declined.
1. The historical events obviously coincide with the findings in the polls. The first survey was given pre-9/11, when national security was not much of a pressing issue. Now, after our involvement in wars and terror, it is clear that Americans are much more concerned with the nation's security, as they should be. Also, the US is becoming a more open-minded country, with more acceptance for the LGBT community. The shifts in opinion make sense in relation to the events of the past 13 years.
2. Mostly, yes. There is an obvious difference in the amount of satisfaction regarding gun control laws between Republicans and Democrats, for Republicans are most likely fans of the more "open" laws, while Democrats would favor more restriction which isn't largely present. Also, Republicans in general usually aren't advocates of gay rights, so the recent surge of states allowing gay marriage probably is not something they enjoy seeing. However, these are merely blanket statements and of course do not apply to every person in every party.
3. Democrats would likely favor a more restrictive gun control policy, as indicated by their low percentage of satisfaction. Meanwhile, Republicans would favor a policy restricting women's rights to choose to have an abortion, as indicated by a low level of support.
4. This means that Republicans and Democrats could be in much more harmony than we believe on some issues, which would shrink the gap that appears to be present. Knowing the sampling error helps me in understanding the article more accurately, as I know that some information could be incorrect.
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.