AP U.S. Government & Politics
3.3K views | +0 today
Follow
AP U.S. Government & Politics
relevant articles concerning American government and politics.
Curated by Kelly Grossman
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due 10/30--Texas has good chance to be player in presidential primaries | Dallas Morning News

Due 10/30--Texas has good chance to be player in presidential primaries | Dallas Morning News | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
The March 1 date, the broad field of candidates, and Texans on the ballot could give the state a big say.
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the article in which you answer the following questions -by 3pm on Friday, 10/23


Note: This article was published back in July when former Gov. Rick Perry was still in the race.

 

1. How has Texas participated in the pattern of frontloading based off of this article? What are some consequences of frontloading?

 2. How can the Texas primary be a critical contest to the GOP?

 3. How are the Texas delegates rewarded for the GOP party convention and why will it play a significant role?

 4. Why do some expect higher voter turnout for the Republican Texas primary this year?


more...
Cierren Lynn's curator insight, October 23, 2015 4:26 PM

1. It's participating in frontloading by holding its primary on March 1st also known as Super Tuesday or the "SEC primary." This causes a decrease in voter turnout. 

2. It's critical because there are 14 GOP candidates and still more to come so it's unlikely that one candidate will take the lead and get the nomination before March 1st. 
3. The 155 delegates are being awarded because results are based from the state’s 36 congressional district. Candidates can win up to three delegates per district. Delegates are also awarded on a statewide basis so candidates can focus on geographic areas where they are strong instead of focusing on the winner take all system. 
4. More people will come because it's a presidential election not a midterm. 
Katryna Parisi's curator insight, October 25, 2015 12:46 PM

1. How has Texas participated in the pattern of frontloading based off of this article? What are some consequences of frontloading? Usually its not very important because there aren't as many candidates as there are this year, and frontloading is a problem because it can cause district disadvantages 

 2. How can the Texas primary be a critical contest to the GOP? It can be a spring board for GOP because we are such a big influential state for republicans

 3. How are the Texas delegates rewarded for the GOP party convention and why will it play a significant role? They're awarded on state basis so this means they can focus on areas they're not as stong in because they know some areas are going to vote their way for sure.

 4. Why do some expect higher voter turnout for the Republican Texas primary this year? Because there are so many candidates and we have to make sure we get the right person as the TX nominee

Peyton Young's curator insight, October 25, 2015 7:09 PM
Texas is participating in frontloading by participating in Super Tuesday on March 1 and having earlier primary elections. Due to many nominates for Republican ballot, this will make it difficult for a victor of our state. This also decreases voting numbers due to lack of participation.It is unlikely that one republican nominee will secure the top ballot spot so Texas will become a very important part to who will secure the state since we count for so many votes.They are rewarded based on results from 36 congressional districts. Delegates are awarded at an incredible bias, therefore they can win 3 per district. Candidates typically focus on areas where they have a large trust factor in.Presidential candidates typically draw in more voters due to the type of election. The GOP voters have the ability to use momentum and inspire voters to contribute to a specific candidate in their ideals and that there are so many different views and a controversial figure frontrunning(Trump).
Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due 12/5--In Same-Sex Marriage Calculation, Justices May See Golden Ratio

Due 12/5--In Same-Sex Marriage Calculation, Justices May See Golden Ratio | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Same-sex marriage will be banned in 15 states at most if the Supreme Court takes up the question this term or next. That could be an important number.
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the article in which you answer the following questions -by 3pm on Friday, 12/5

 

The issue of same-sex marriage is a highly contentious moral and Constitutional issue amongst Americans. It is also a difficult issue to come to some sort of consensus because there is not much to compromise on; either you believe it is a right protected by the Constitution or you do not, there isn’t much middle ground. The following article provides a perspective of what the Court may be currently thinking and what might become of this issue in the future.

 

1. What precedent has been established by the Court when it comes to states placing limitations on relationships? Can we predict what the outcome of a ruling on same-sex marriage would be based on this precedent? In what ways might this precedent differ from the same-sex marriage issue?

 

2. The Supreme Court decides to take on or pass up a case for many reasons. Why might SCOTUS be hesitant to bring forth a case directly questioning the Constitutionality of same-sex marriage? Why might the liberal wing of the Supreme Court purposely choose to pass up these cases for the time being?

 

3. For the first time there is a major discrepancy between the different circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals rulings on same-sex marriage with the recent decision by the Sixth Circuit this fall. Why might the Supreme Court be more willing to hear an appeal of this case than others in the past?

 

4. In what way does the Court’s handling of the same-sex marriage issue qualify as judicial activism or judicial restraint? Justify your answer.

more...
Mike Williams's curator insight, January 8, 2015 10:57 PM

1. The precedent for allowing same-sex relationships lies with two things: the Equal Protection Clause and the Right to Privacy established in the landmark case Roe v Wade. Additionally, the precedents established in Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage) and Lawrence v Texas (anti-sodomy laws) show that the court has a track record of striking down laws limiting personal freedoms. However, this case may differ due to the fact that in previous cases, such laws had fallen out of favor with the general public. Same-sex marriage on the other hand, is split almost 50/50 in public opinion polls.

 

2. The Supreme Court may be unwilling to establish a precedent on this subject for two reasons: 1)They want to leave it up to the states  OR 2) They want to wait for public opinion on the issue to change, and allow the laws to be repealed on their own.

 

3. They would me more willing because the Roberts Court has a history of judicial activism, and will want to settle a dispute between the different circuit courts.

 

4.  Judicial Activism- The court is taking the case because it feels the need to solve a dispute between two or more lower courts.

Cole Thurman's curator insight, September 24, 2015 9:43 PM

Cole Thurman

Grossman

AP Government

24 September 2015

                                                   Current Events.

     The Supreme court has often times regarded laws and constitutional protections regarding relationships in America by measuring how the population as a whole feels in regards to the issue. If the country has a two-thirds favor regarding an issue the Court tends to not hesitate from striking it down, but if there is majority support from both the public and the state then the Court often times acts with deliberate strikes.  Indeed a educated guess could be made that the Supreme Court rules in favor of equal marriage as long as the country for the most part supports their decision. No Gay-Marriage is no different from any other relationship cases that have resided in the Supreme Court.

     Because the Court understands that to be able to rule in favor of a said party, in regards to relationship, must see support from at least two-thirds of the country. Without any attempt to better equality will most likely be struck down. A good example is Plessy V. Ferguson, if this case had been held 50 years later the court would most likely have ruled in favor of Ferguson.

     Again harking back to the majority acceptance is key to ruling in favor of equality. The court has waited for the right conditions and with only 16 states left to legalize gay marriage now would be a better time than any.

     Because some Judges might not wholly believe that gay marriage is acceptable. It might conflict with personal religious and moral views, but since they are expected to judge without any religious bias, and use the Constitution as the foundation for their verdicts they will have to show Judicial Activism curbing their own beliefs for the good of the whole.
Tyler Gannon's curator insight, December 7, 2015 1:53 AM

Tyler Gannon's insight:

1. The court has set a precedent of acting and changing policy regarding state's limitations on relationships only when less than a third of the states still practice the issue. Based on the overwhelming majority of states swinging towards supporting gay rights, it can be assumed that the court will take the similar action to lift anti-gay laws. The only difference between the established precedent and the same-sex marriage issue is that the surge of support has been the work of supreme court judges and their rulings, as opposed to state legislatures. 

2. SCOTUS might be hesitant in bringing up the issue of gay rights simply due to a lack of public support. Certainly the support for gay rights exists in the liberal-dominated court, however much of the country still defines marriage between a man and a woman. The liberal wing might want to wait for the public to change their morals and values to mesh with those of the Supreme court. Once societal values and public values match, a decision can be made. 

3. The supreme court might be more willing to hear an appeal from the Sixth Circuit because of the major controversy it is causing from the ever-growing supporters of gay marriage, and because the court understands it needs to establish precedent once again should a similar controversy arise in the future. 

4. The Supreme Court's handling of the same-sex marriage qualifies as judicial activism simply because the courts are venturing into uncharted territories based on their own considerations not outlined in the constitution or underlined in previous law.  

Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due by 10/31--Panel’s G.O.P. Chairman Steps Up Criticism of Ebola Response

Due by 10/31--Panel’s G.O.P. Chairman Steps Up Criticism of Ebola Response | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Representative Darrell Issa, during a congressional hearing, said, “I think we all know that the system is not yet refined to where we could say it is working properly.”
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection of the article in which you answer the following questions by 3:00pm Friday, October 31!

1. What non-legislative power is Congress enacting in this article? How does this check the power of the executive branch?

2. Who was testifying at these hearings? Why would these certain people be chosen to provide testimony?

3. Which two committees held hearings on the handling of the Ebola virus in the U.S.? Why would this be?

4. Why would the power from question #1 be important for Congress to have?

more...
Triston Blessing's curator insight, November 3, 2014 2:43 AM
Congress is enacting its power of legislative oversight. This puts pressure on the executive branch to reconsider their actions and perhaps perform them more appropriately.Officials from the Department of Defense and from Health and Human Services were chosen for their credibility stemming from the fact that they are directly involved in pandemic control.The House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held hearings on the handling of the Ebola virus in the U.S. because restricting travel and enacting reform were considered.Legislative oversight is significant in guiding the executive branch to do what is in the best interest of those that represent the people.
Lily Clegg's curator insight, November 3, 2014 8:45 AM

1. They are enacting legislative oversight. They can check the power of the Executive branch by investigating bureaucratic actions through things like hearings.

2. Darrell Issa, John Roth, Deborah Burger, Tim Murphy,  and the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services all testified. They were probably chosen to testify because of their expertise in this subject.

3. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Energy and Commerce Committee were the ones that held hearings. The Oversight committee is monitoring actions taken to try to figure out the best solution to the problem and what actions should be take. The Commerce committee is involved because an epidemic could severely affect commerce and the economy.

4. Because it gives them power to do more than just make laws, and allows them to check the power of the Executive branch. 

Anh Doan's curator insight, November 3, 2014 10:32 PM

1. The congress was using it's power of legislative oversight, this checks the power of the executive branch because they can question Obama's handling of the situation and work to improve it.
2. Some of the people testifying were from the national nurses united, as well as officials from the departments of defense, homeland security, and health and human services. These people were chosen because if anyone would have information to discuss, it would be them.
3. The two committees holding hearings and handling these issues in the united states are the oversight and gov reform and the energy and commerce. Probably because this issue is about equipment (commerce) to aid the prevention of ebola, and the oversight takes care of taxation money.
4. This power of legislative oversight is important because Congress can make sure the executive power is not too strong, that there are checks and balances.

Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due by 10/3--Democratic, Republican Party Favorable Ratings Now Similar

Due by 10/3--Democratic, Republican Party Favorable Ratings Now Similar | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
The favorable ratings of the Democratic (42%) and Republican (40%) parties are now similar, after an increase in positivity toward the GOP. Since 2013, Americans have viewed both parties negatively overall.
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection in the gallup poll in which you answer the following questions by 3:00pm Friday, October 3!

 

1. How can the recent results from this poll be seen as cause for celebration to each party?

2. How can the recent results from this poll be seen as cause for concern to each party?

3. How could the data from this poll be connected to the recent trend in party dealignment and growing party neutrality? What does this mean for the mid-term election next month?

4. What steps were taken to ensure a low sampling error in this poll?

more...
Daniel Street's curator insight, October 5, 2014 10:17 PM


The democrats could celebrate the results of the poll because their ratings have remained steady, and the republicans could celebrate because their ratings have been moving in a positive trend.

The results of the poll could be seen as a cause for concern for the democrats because while their ratings have remained steady the republicans have been closing the gap, and the republicans have cause for concern because people do not view the republicans any higher than the democrats

The data in the poll could be connected to the trend of party dealignment and growing party neutrality because neither party is viewed very highly and as a result of discontent people may vote on split tickets in very large numbers in the election next month.

The surveyors took a random sample of large numbers of people across the country.
George's curator insight, October 6, 2014 8:26 PM

The reason poll show that both party have almost equal rating, which is a good thing. The concern is that it's hard for people to decide which party to vote for because they can't decide which one is more favorable. This data can be connected to the recent trend that people are more less likely to vote for either party, they are more likely independents or moderates. Mid term election next month will be really close. The steps taken to ensure a low sampling error were around one thousand adults across all 50 states, with Spanish translations, also interviewing both cellular and land lines. In addition the sampling race, gender, age etc were weighted to match to match current demographics.

Andrew Betancourt's curator insight, October 6, 2014 11:26 PM

1. each party can celebrate over the fact that neither party has an upper hand on the other . they're both in the same boat.2. a concern for both parties is that neither of the parties seems to offer any real difference so people don't care for them.3.It shows that people feel there is no difference with the groups and7 that both are just as cruddy as the others. It shows that people don't like having to choice soo radically to get what they want done. The two parties will have to come even closer in ideals to make any big change to people.4. more people were asked, the people asked might have been from many different regions and states.

Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due by 4/25--Here's What You Need to Know About the President's 2015 Budget

Due by 4/25--Here's What You Need to Know About the President's 2015 Budget | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Here's how President Obama's budget would grow our economy and expand #OpportunityForAll → http://go.wh.gov/ctxpdE
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the video and graphics below in which you answer the following questions  - by class time on Friday, 4/25!

 

1. What are the reasons OMB Deputy Director Brian Deese gives for the rapid rate of decline in the deficit (debt-GDP ratio)?

2. According to Mr. Deese, how would the president's proposed budget for 2015 affect future deficits? Explain.

3. How does the president’s budget try to build on Congress’s effort to compromise in the allocation of discretionary spending? Provide a description of at least one component of this initiative.

4. Knowing that you do not have all of the pertinent information to make a fully-informed decision, what do you see as the pros and cons of this budget proposal?

more...
Miranda Rae Garcia's curator insight, April 28, 2014 6:53 PM

1.) We are experiencing a historic reduction in the rate of growth of healthcare costs, and that is why there is a rapid rate of decline in the deficit. 2.) The president's proposed budget would put us on the green part of his graph It would lower future deficits. 3.) Discretionary spending is the money that congress is supposed to allocate and approve where it goes. The president tries to build off of this effort while showing how he would invest in the future and things that would help the economy grow. The president tries to build off of this effort because it provides some stability for economy. One component of this initiative would be early learning, and adding slots for children around the country. 4.) Pros of this budget proposal would be helping early learning and using money to find a cure for cancer and things like that. A con would be spending all of that money and then there not being a positive outcome.

Katie Nissen's curator insight, April 29, 2014 8:00 PM

1. due to the rate of reduction in healthcare costs

2.  Lower deficits because of policies of health care costs will allow the economy to grow

3. it set limits allowing stability for his budget. He uses that to invest in things that could potentially allow the economy to grow. Early learning which is education would allows for new opportunities

4. Some pros are the ability for the both sides come together to decide on  the economy, unfortunately the President could invest in the wrong programs which will waste resources. 

Brooklyn Ward's curator insight, September 25, 2015 7:55 AM

1.The reason for the decline in the deficit is the lower spending by the public on healthcare.

2.By continuing to add more constraints on healthcare cost, the deficit  will continue to decrease.

3.The President is making compromises with congress (mostly republicans) by setting aside half the discretionary fund for military spending.

4. Pros: more money will be invested in two things government should be funding: schools and the military

Cons: the question of can they really close all the loopholes in the tax codes, and then there's the issue that the government funded healthcare doubled in cost this past year (even when the congressional budget office estimated it would decrease by nearly 30%) and the cost is estimated to nearly double again by 2016 reaching almost $120 billion.

Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due by 4/11-Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders

Due by 4/11-Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
President pushing contractor changes with executive orders, moving without help from Congress
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the article in which you answer the following questions  - by class time on Friday, 4/11!

Why has President Obama chosen to enact an executive order regarding pay of federal employees?What are the limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general?What criticism is being levied against presidents’ use of executive orders? What is the criticism of this specific executive order?What policy area has the White House chosen not to address with executive orders? Why might the Obama administration be hesitant to address this area?

 

more...
Shelby Mench's curator insight, April 15, 2014 2:39 PM

1.)    Why has President Obama chosen to enact an executive order regarding pay of federal employees?

President Obama has chosen to enact an executive order regarding the pay of federal employees because he has not been able to get the support that he needs from Congress.

2.)    What are the limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general?

However there are certain limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general such as the fact that they can be put into a trial for legality and it can create a division with congress when Obama really needs them to back him!

3.)    What criticism is being levied against presidents’ use of executive orders? What is the criticism of this specific executive order?

There is criticism that is being levied against the president’s use of executive orders such as the point that Obama needs to put forward a better effort to work with congress and to step back and review the stress he is placing on other companies financially.

4.)    What policy area has the White House chosen not to address with executive orders?

There is the policy of gay rights which The White House has chosen not to address using executive orders.

5.)    Why might the Obama administration be hesitant to address this area?

The Obama administration might be hesitant to address the area because Obama does not want to lose any of the public’s support! He is hoping that the Senate will pass a bill and will be able to protect all Americans rather than just a few.

Courtney OConnor's curator insight, April 15, 2014 6:57 PM

I was absent Wednesday-Friday with no access to computer/ internet.

 

President Obama has chosen to enact an executive order due to complications compromising with Congress. This executive order would prevent contractors from retaliating against employees discussing their pay as well as require the Labor Department to require contractors to provide data regarding pay based on race and gender. His limitations are that his order may be challenged and deemed unlawful by Congress. There is criticism that President Obama may be stepping out of line by not agreeing with Congress about this decision, and that he's using his power too far. Also, Federal Contractors believe that releasing this data would call for an increase in lawsuits and the creation of a two tier system. The White House has not chosen to deal with the agenda that would protect gays and lesbians working for these Federal Contractors. He might be hesitant to address this issue due to the growing support of protection of gays and lesbians in Congress as it is and further provocation to Congress would be harmful for his administration.

Katie Nissen's curator insight, April 17, 2014 5:40 AM

President Barack Obama chosen to put in place an executive order so he can control more of the economy by keeping federal contractors from hurting employees who would like a raise. His executive order was denied by congress. The order might be considered unlawful. Republicans know that he is using his power to much and needs to be working with congress. People know that his executive order will give a burden to companies and hurt their inflow of money. The white house has not said anything about protecting gays and lesbians working from federal contractors. The white house’s goal is to spread protection to all Americans. 

Rescooped by Kelly Grossman from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Due by 3/28 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government?

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...


Via Teresa Herrin
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the video in which you answer the following questions  - by class time on Friday, 3/28! This is a brief video detailing the controversy of gerrymandering. This isn't a criticism of either party (both are guilty of it), but of the system itself. 

What is gerrymandering and how did it get its name?What are some of the characteristics of redrawn districts?When are House seats reapportioned?What is a potential solution to gerrymandering provided in the video? What implications would this have for an incumbents’ future reelection?Are there any similarities that can be drawn between potential outcomes with the Electoral College and gerrymandering? If so, describe.
more...
Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, April 2, 2014 9:41 PM

1. The House redraws the congressional districts every 10 years on the census in an attempr to make the districts lend their support to whoever the current party majority is.

2. Gerrymandering allows incumbents to get reelected multiple times. 

3. Have a computerized, neutral program that would create districts based on geography and demography. A program such as this would make it more difficult for incumbents to get reelected.

4. Yes, there are. One party could earn more votes than another but still lose the election.

5. No because it is an unhonorable way to earn the respective benefits.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 12, 2014 2:09 PM

gerymandering is the act of redrawing a district and its has gotten its name from Albridge Garry who redrew a district in the beginning of our country in order for him to win a vote. The redrawing of the districts almost guarantees a win in voting because it allows the politicians to choose their voters. In the video, suggested possible solutions to gerrymandering would be to redraw district lines according to geography, demographics, and population density but it would cause a disruption in the current system and would make it very difficult for a representative to be reelected to a district that doesn't have the same advantages. Gerrymandering can be compared to the electoral college because these systems don't work in the favor of the public, or the majority vote because with the representatives picking the districts containing people they know will vote for them along with the electoral college being able to override the public vote, it has caused question in the democratic system of the United States.

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 2014 9:47 PM

The term gerrymandering comes from an 1810 law that was created by Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, which repositioned and defined congressional districts based on population changes. After the law was passed, newspaper articles came out with pictures of the re-drawn districts in concerning shapes, such as a salamander. They linked the two words “salamander” and “Gerry” and called it gerrymandering. As time has gone on, gerrymandering has been manipulated by both the Republican and Democratic parties by them re-drawing districts specifically to change the possible outcome of their “political cartoon” if you will. House seats are being re-apportioned every presidential election year. The video suggested that these means of politics have made it so that “the politicians are choosing their voters, rather than the voters choosing their politicians”. This is causing major distrust in candidates and decrease in voter participation. Gerrymandering has been beneficial to incumbents because they change their districts to work in favor of their election. Both the Electoral College and gerrymandering can be seen as unfair or corrupt government practices because they can sometimes both not accurately depict the peoples' votes by changing their districts. With the Electoral College, they could win a majority of the electoral votes, but not the majority vote. With gerrymandering, a politician would be elected just because of the re-drawn, manipulated districts, which is ridiculous. 

Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due by 3/6: Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2016 presidential ratings update: Nothing but questions on the Republican side

Due by 3/6: Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2016 presidential ratings update: Nothing but questions on the Republican side | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the reading in which you answer the following questions  - by class time on Thursday, 3/6!There are many, MANY articles about the potential candidates in the 2016 presidential election. We chose this one for a variety of reasons, but you should understand that anything printed this early is pure speculation – so don’t take it to heart, it could all change tomorrow!

1. Based on this article, what would you say that the media is looking for in an ideal candidate for 2016? Is it the same for both parties?

2. To what extent is Sabato focused on the issues (platform) of the candidates?

3. Sabato refers to the “permanent presidential campaign.” What does this mean, and what are the implications for government?

4. Do you think that there is an advantage to being identified as an early leader in the presidential race? Why or why not?

 

Since we just finished talking about polling, be sure to check this page out: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/.

more...
Jorge Lopez0408's curator insight, April 4, 2014 10:12 AM

1. Based on this article, what would you say that the media is looking for in an ideal candidate for 2016? Is it the same for both parties? The conservitave side is the new side that has been wanting to be used and hired for the new seat of the White House. The conservitive side is wanted for the both parties to maybe have a chance to help control the economy.

2. To what extent is Sabato focused on the issues (platform) of the candidates? What the disadvantages and advantages are for the runnign canidates for the points they they will attack and what they will focu on.

3. Sabato refers to the “permanent presidential campaign.” What does this mean, and what are the implications for government? The permanent campaign is the non stop of action being attacked. The new canidates will keep running for their own worries and ideas, not for the people.

4. Do you think that there is an advantage to being identified as an early leader in the presidential race? Why or why not? Yes, the earlier you come out, the earlier your ideas spread to the people about your campaign run.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 14, 2014 11:56 PM

The media is looking for  both a woman candidate to run for the Democraticparty and someone fresh who has not been in the spotlight. because of this they have been keeping their eye on Hilary Clinton. However for the Republican Party, the media is looking for a clear-cut candidate as they let the scandals fall as they may. Sabato is not very interested on the party platforms of candidates, but rather their popularity and faults. He is making broad assumptions of each possible candidate and listing the general pros and cons of each.Sabato describes the permanency of campaigns by acknowledging that campaigning is a continuous process. He seems to imply that it is a good thing, and it allows voters to be more informed and aware of possible candidates.It is not an advantage to be identified early as a leader in the presidential race because this puts the candidate in the media spotlight. It also creates boredom in voters as they tire of constantly seeing information on a particular candidate.           

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 2014 10:16 PM
So far, the media seems to be looking for candidates with successful political record, is liked by the public and their party, and isn’t too harsh on their views but also isn’t too loose. These credentials seem to be the same for both parties. They as well want a candidate with a good political record and popularity vote.Sabato is less concerned with their political platforms, because they can easily be changed, and more with their political experience and records and financial capabilities.Sabato’s reference to the “permanent presidential campaign” means that candidates now are more concerned with their media coverage and appearances when campaigning themselves. The government itself has become increasingly concerned with the media and its perception of what happens in the government and with running candidates. This causes some candidates to change their political platforms to fit what they think the media will want, which has caused some of them to become less popular.I think that there is an advantage to being known as an “early leader” in the presidential race because the leaders are the ones who other candidates will form their candidacies around. Other candidates will sway their opinions and fit what they think fits to the media and what the media wants rather than what they believe. This would not be as big of a problem for early runners because they start out on top because of their political ideologies and then gain media support, not the other way around.
Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due by 2/20: Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red

Due by 2/20: Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
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.
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the reading in which you answer the following questions  - by class time on Thursday, 2/20!

1. Why are Democrats hopeful of a party realignment in Texas? How is this related to the concept of minority majority?

2. What are the trends in party identification within the state of Texas?

3. Why does Gallup suggest that the current situation is unlikely to result in party realignment in the near future? How is this related to the concept of political participation?

4. What steps were taken to ensure a low sampling error in this poll?

more...
Shelby Payton Salkar's comment, March 27, 2014 10:22 AM
1. Democrats are looking forward that with an increase in Hispanic pop. the state may have enough Democratic votes to turn the state blue. Generally speaking, Hispanics are Democratic. As more minorities flock to America, whites are becoming a minority and may lose their typical Republican hold in Texas.<br>2. Whites are very Republican, while their Hispanic friends are mostly Democratic. In terms of the rest of the country, however, the Hispanics in Texas have more Republicans than elsewhere.
Shelby Payton Salkar's comment, March 27, 2014 10:29 AM
3 Gallup believes that Texas will not experience political realignment, the reason being Texas Hispanics are more likely not to vote. Although they hold opinions, but their lack of hands on political participation prevents Texas from being a blue state.<br> <br>4. The poll has a 1% error because the pollers checked to see if half of the surveys over cell and the other half over landline calls and then the surveyed at random..then there is the spanish polling,
Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 15, 2014 12:15 AM

The Democrats are slowly taking over texas because the minorities in texas are growing in numbers and the majority of the minorities fully support the Democrats. Though Texas is mostly Republican,  Democrats are hoping this population change will change texas into a Democratic state.  Keeping that in mind, many Hispanics are not registering to vote and because of that the minorities aren't necessarily able to vote and represent themselves when the majority votes more than the minority. This is a prime example of how participation can change the outcome of an election. The data from this article was taken by random phone call surveys by an equal number in each group asked

Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Half in U.S. Continue to Say Gov't Is an Immediate Threat

Half in U.S. Continue to Say Gov't Is an Immediate Threat | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Almost half of Americans, 49%, say the federal government poses "an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens." This is unchanged since 2010 but up from 30% in 2003.
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the article in which you answer the following questions -by 3pm on Friday, 9/25.


1. Rather than this poll reflecting purely fundamental differences in American’s philosophical attitude about government, what is the apparent attitude people have towards the government in current control?

2. What is a fault with the open-ended questions when comparing answers from the Bush administration?

3. What are the two findings that cause pollsters to not draw a more dramatic interpretation of 49% of Americans believing the government is an imminent threat?

4. What is the general impression pollsters and readers should concluded from these findings?

5. What steps were taken to ensure a low sampling error in this poll?

more...
Allison Jennings's curator insight, September 27, 2015 8:41 PM

1. I believe the apparent attitude towards government control is hostile and worrisome.

2. The open-ended questions was asked once in the past of 2010. It mainly stemmed from the point of view of republicans. 

3. two reasons pollsters didn't take more dramatic interpretations of the poll is because one, republicans and democrats have changed in their probability in believing that the government is a threat and two the reasons of the people who held that view shows traditional complaints as to radical beliefs.

4.The general impression pollsters and readers should conclude is that governments role should be at the forefront of the nations discussion on the presidential election.

5. For the results, the poll was conducted through telephone interviews with a 4% sampling error from  about 1,000 adults in all 50 states.

Jack Lansdell's comment, September 28, 2015 9:34 PM

1. This shows the lack of confidence forwards Obamas policy's shown in how more republics agreed with threat statement against Obama then democrats to bush. And shows that people dislike the political party In office.
2. This question was not asked during the Bush administration so there's nothing to compare it to.
3. The republicans and democrats swapped views in specific aspects of the gov. Due to Obama administration and in the poll that was taken the people more people complained than anything else.
4. These findings seems crazy at first but then you just remember that democrats don't like republicans in office and vice versa. And even some republicans won't believe in what the president finds as too priority
5. The poll takers did a random sample of 1,025 adults with cellphones, landlines, in all 50 states plus D.C and over 18 years of age.
Nathan Green's curator insight, October 16, 2015 1:17 PM

1.A good chunk of Americans in that poll say that in general it is too big, so that shows that they feel their is something wrong with how government is doing something, but they are not sure what exactly they oppose or they are in principal against too much government.

2.People do not give specifics in open-ended as they do with just choosing a problem or writing their own as the Bush Administration tended to have more specificly said problems than the current administration.

3.The first one was that these views about distrust in government flips which is dependent on the current presidents political party. The Second is these people that hold a distrust in the government only offer small complaints rather than radical beliefs.

4. That one party does not trust or agree with the other party's administration when that administration is in office and same vice versa.

5.They were taken from US adults over the age of 18 witha margin of sampling error ±4% and a larger group of them were with cell phones rather than landline as a bigger number of Americans have a cell phone rather than a land line.

Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due by 11/14--President Obama’s executive action plan falls short

Due by 11/14--President Obama’s executive action plan falls short | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
President Barack Obama vowed to make 2014 the “Year of Action,” but the reality is that the action is often limited and the full impact won’t be felt for years — if at all. A POLITICO analysis of the more than 60 executive actions announced since January found that not even the president’s vaunted “pen and phone”...
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the article in which you answer the following questions -by 3pm on Friday, 11/14. (Note: the following article was written a month before the midterm election, however, the information is still relevant.)

1. Why has the president resorted to using a larger number of executive orders recently?

2. Describe one example where President Obama has chosen to make an executive order after his administration’s policies failed to pass in Congress?

3. What role does the State of the Union Address play in the president executing policy?

4. How might the concept of the “lame duck presidency” already be a reality for the Obama administration?

more...
Jake Bransford's curator insight, November 17, 2014 7:03 PM

1. Why has the president resorted to using a larger number of executive orders recently?

He has resorted to executive orders because congress will not pass any of the legislation he wants.

2. Describe one example where President Obama has chosen to make an executive order after his administration's policies failed to pass in Congress.

Obama has proposed for an increase in the minimum wage, but it has not been passed.

3. What role does the State of the Union Address play in the president executing policy?

The president can announce his future plans for the country and how he decides to handle the nations problems.

4. How might the concept of the "lame duck presidency" already be a reality for the Obama administration?

Even though he is not close to the end of his second term, the president already experienced a lame duck style as he had a gridlocked congress.  Now after mid term elections, he will have a complete Republican run congress, so it will not get any better. 

Kiefer Detrick's curator insight, November 18, 2014 7:50 PM

1.President Obama has resorted to using executive orders in his recent terms because of his frustration with Congress' gridlock. He wants to show the Republican party that they have not completely overpowered him and he wants to gain Democratic support.

2. When the Democrats failed to pass a bill prohibiting employees from attacking workers who discuss their compensation, Obama signed an executive order covering only federal contractors. 
3. The State of the Union address is used by Obama to discuss his policy agenda with the people and with Congress.
4. The concept of the “lame duck presidency” may become a reality for President Obama as the Republicans gain Congressional power and he loses his influence. His policies are taking much longer now and will probably not achieve their intended goals by the end of his term.

Ashley Marshall's curator insight, November 19, 2014 7:25 PM

1. He is attempting to persuade Congress to get on board with raising the minimum wage.

2. Obama pledged to halt deportation of millions of illegal immigrants by the end of the summer if Congress didn't pass legislation to raise the minimum wage.

3. The State of the Union Address is essential to presidents in order to get public backing.  Obama put this issue in his speech (or his speech writers did) so that he could attempt to get the public on his side and influence their Congress members to pass his legislation

4. This is already a reality for the Obama admin. because no one is really listening to what he wants and it doesn't help that there is a Republican majority in Congress right now so they are trying to hold out until a Republican resident is elected and they can get what they want.

Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due by 10/24--Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government?

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 public opinion. NBC’s Kevin Tibbles reports.
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the video in which you answer the following questions  - by 3pm on Friday, 10/24!

This is a brief video detailing the controversy of gerrymandering. It’s now a year old, but still contains relevant information. This isn't a criticism of either party (both are guilty of it), but of the system itself. 

 

1. What is gerrymandering and how did it get its name?

2. What are some of the characteristics of redrawn districts?

3. When are House seats reapportioned?

4. What is a potential solution to gerrymandering provided in the video? What implications would this have for an incumbents’ future reelection?

5. Are there any similarities that can be drawn between potential outcomes with the Electoral College and gerrymandering? If so, describe.

more...
Vanessa Esparza's curator insight, October 24, 2014 3:59 PM

lkbj

Joseph Mouris's curator insight, October 24, 2014 4:03 PM

1. Gerrymandering is the manipulation of districts inorder to ensure "friendly voters" for your party. it is the combination of senator Gerry and a salamander which he redraw on a map, trying to get friendly voters

2. unusual shapes drawn on a map such as a salamander, spilled coffee, and headsets, that include the most possible "friendly voters"

3. after the census comes out with poplution, possibly adding more or decreasing the number of representatives based on the poplution in each state.

4. By creating algorithms which creates districts based on geography and  population. givng the people the powere to chose their representatives, rather than the representatives chosen their voters

5. they both target "friendly voters" and "safe states" that they could win

Murphy Studebaker's curator insight, October 24, 2014 7:21 PM

1. What is gerrymandering and how did it get its name?

Algorithmically selecting a district in order to be elected to the house, the first person to use this technique had the last name of Gerry

2. What are some of the characteristics of redrawn districts?

They have ridiculous shapes that clearly look like fraud, such as “spilled coffee” or a “reverse pterodactyl”

3. When are House seats reapportioned? Every ten years after the census

4. What is a potential solution to gerrymandering provided in the video? What implications would this have for an incumbents’ future reelection? They could make the districts by population and geography which could weaken the stronghold incumbents have on reelections

5. Are there any similarities that can be drawn between potential outcomes with the Electoral College and gerrymandering? If so, describe.  Politicians pick which states to care about because of the electoral college, while representatives pick where to draw their lines. The politicians are manipulating the voting system to insure their victory, rather than allowing the people to select the winner.

Rescooped by Kelly Grossman from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Just for Review!!! An Iowa Caucus Primer: How the Process Works | RealClearPolitics

Just for Review!!! An Iowa Caucus Primer: How the Process Works | RealClearPolitics | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it

Via Christine Thompson
Kelly Grossman's insight:

This is just to help you if you are confused over the caucus system vs. the primary system!

more...
Christine Thompson's curator insight, April 28, 2014 1:52 PM

This not an assignment... but I wanted to post this because I'm seeing many misconceptions about caucuses in the FRQs. Some of the misconceptions:

 

1. A caucus is not the same as a closed primary, though you do have to be a member of the party. How caucuses differ from primaries:

 - People discuss the issues and candidates before voting.

 - The candidates or their representatives give speeches to try to sway votes their way.

 - The voting is much more informal. In some primaries, people move to the side of the room designated for the candidate they support - and they can try to win over voters from other sectors.

 

2. Another common misconception is that only party leaders attend caucuses. Like primaries, the elite (economic, political, and/or educational) tend to be the ones who vote... but all members of the party are eligible to take part in the caucus.

Patricia Tiscareno's curator insight, October 17, 2014 12:52 PM

1.) the basis of the electoral college is to get Americas elite come together and to represent the rest of their population in the vote for president, this was chosen because communication traveled at a slower rate and was not accurate enough therefore this was a perfect way to keep representation in an orderly manner .

2.) The strategy used by presidential nominees is to focus their campaigning efforts and only of the "swing" states to ensure and maintain more electoral votes. Swing states are crucial to presidential nominations for they are the key factors opposed to safe state in determining the outcome of an election.

3.) .The Twelfth Amendment provides for what happens if the Electoral College fails to elect a President or Vice President. If no candidate receives a majority for President, then the House of Representatives will select the President

4.)  No because it does not allow for equal representation of citizens in the United States and takes away the valuable right of expressing and casting our voice for the use of political activity.

Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due 4/18--Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step

Due 4/18--Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. may work slowly, but he has a long-term strategy for putting his mark on the Supreme Court.
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on this article in which you answer the following questions - by class time on Friday, 4/18.

1. Who/what has been consistently favored in Roberts court decisions? Cite evidence to support your answer.

2. What is precedent and in what ways has the Roberts court largely made rulings based on precedent?

3. What strategy(ies) might the President pursue to see greater success in the Court?

4. Which Justice is considered the “swing vote” on the court and why?

5.Is there discernible bias in the way this article was written? Why, or why not?

more...
Jorge Lopez0408's curator insight, April 20, 2014 8:47 PM

1. Who/what has been consistently favored in Roberts court decisions? Cite evidence to support your answer. The liberals since the liberal party is the majority than the conservative in the judicial court ruling over every conservative ruling of even small case. 

2. What is precedent and in what ways has the Roberts court largely made rulings based on precedent? Precedent is the previous establishment of the previous case which affects the choice of the cases in the future. The rulings have gone towards the liberal sides making rules about certain laws that liberal party congress member rule upon to make of law. 

3. What strategy(ies) might the President pursue to see greater success in the Court? The strategy that the president may use would be the media to cover the choices of the people to go to certain sides of the choices that the judicial branch makes upon the laws to be passed by the rule of four. 

4. Which Justice is considered the “swing vote” on the court and why? Justice Kennedy is the "swing vote" because there is already a 4 to 4 ratio of the conservative and liberal which Kennedy makes the 6 to 6 judicial vote.

5.Is there discernible bias in the way this article was written? Why, or why not? The article was written in the view of a conservative to help decrease the help many liberals receive in their vote to the upcoming laws that are against many of Obama's choices of laws that he will or will not veto against the court ruling. 

Shelby Mench's curator insight, April 22, 2014 9:46 AM

1.)  Who/what has been consistently favored in Roberts court decisions? Cite evidence to support your answer.

 

            In Roberts court decisions conservatives have been favored and he has shown a large attachment to things which he feels are planting new seeds in the justices and discusses them as a new plant.

 

2. What is precedent and in what ways has the Roberts court largely made rulings based on precedent?

 

          A precedent is when an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. The Roberts court has largely made rulings based on precedent which favor businesses and which choose to push forward older laws.

 

3. What strategy(ies) might the President pursue to see greater success in the Court?

 

            The President might pursue attempting to persuade the justices on issues with a more liberal view. This would help as the Roberts court takes the extra votes in order to gain their votes. This would help the President to see greater success in the court.

 

4. Which Justice is considered the “swing vote” on the court and why?

            The Justice which would be considered the “swing vote” in the court would be Kennedy because he tends to vote both ways and he is typically the deciding vote.

 

5. Is there discernible bias in the way this article was written? Why, or why not?

 

            No there is no discernible bias in the way this article was written because it presents the facts and doesn’t bring in much of an opinion while giving information on both sides instead of only one.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 24, 2014 6:14 PM

1. Conservatives have been constantly favored in Roberts’ court decisions because he is constantly persuading the court’s more liberal justices to pass different laws in the polarized system.

2. Precedent is when a court uses a previous case to evaluate the outcome of a current case. Roberts court mainly deals with this when the case involves businesses.

3. In order for the president to gain more support for Congress, he will need to gain support from the opposing political party by perhaps letting them win smaller battles and compromising.

4. Justice Kennedy is considered the "swing vote" because he has voted for both the conservatives and liberals and he is unpredictable.

5. There is always bias in articles, but this article doesn't necessarily have that much. It sheds light on the views of both conservative and liberals.

Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
The White House is considering putting off a Senate vote on Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, who has come under criticism from the National Rifle Association, or withdrawing the nomination altogether.
Kelly Grossman's insight:

RESCOOP to your own page and write a reflection on the article in which you answer the following questions  - by class time on Friday, 4/4! This article covers a lot of ground: interest groups, checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative, presidential influence in Congress, midterm elections, etc.

1. How is an interest group (the NRA) exercising its influence on this appointment? What are the NRA’s specific concerns with this nominee?

2. What is at stake for Senators, and where is the concern greatest?

3. How does the President/White House play a role in the confirmation process?

4. What strategies could the White House pursue in relation to this appointment? What did the White House learn from recent nominations that were not confirmed?

more...
luke jester's curator insight, April 11, 2014 6:14 PM

1. They  sent out a "grass roots alert" to millions of people so they would tell their senators to not vote for the President's nominee . They don't like the fact that the nominee is extremely against guns.

2. democrats may lose control of the Senate because Senators are voting differently then they normally would because of the NRA .

3. The President chooses the positions of people.

4. they could hold Obama's vote for surgeon general or take out the nomination from the position. they need balance nominees in order to have support from both parties.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 11, 2014 9:28 PM

The NRA is influencing members of congress by personally emailing the voters and trying to rally members against the Surgeon General because they don't agree with his views on gun control and many other issues. The senators reelection is at stake and if they vote with gun control, they will lose the support of the NRA. From this incident, the White House should definitely learn to choose a more fitting person to represent, one that preferably agrees with the policies of the NRA.The white house learned to approach nominations differently in order to recieve better feedback

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 14, 2014 10:38 PM
The NRA is concerned about the appointment of nominee Murthy because he is actively against guns. They are going directly to citizens addressing them about the nominee and asking their opinion and going to senate, trying to get the nominee removed. The NRA are concerned that if the nominee is appointed, the gun-bans in the nation will go up, decreasing their value.The Senate is trying to maintain democratic leadership by listening to their constituents which, in states such as Alaska, Louisiana, and Arkansas, are opposed to gun-banning, which puts them against the nominee.The White House try to choose candidates who will help keep a mostly equal view on arguments and won’t anger any interest groups, such as the NRA, so there won’t be a lack of executive control or support.The White House should consider what is really good for the nation and what candidates are right for the job, rather than trying to please everyone. It is impossible, especially in politics, to please everyone, so they should try to think about what the candidate can offer to the executive process and what they can possibly change. The White House learned that they tend to overestimate democratic support and lean more toward their constituents than the rest of the nation.
Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Just for fun: "About last night: Texas primary highlights"

Just for fun: "About last night: Texas primary highlights" | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
updated Wednesday at 8:45 am ET

(CNN) - The Lone Star state held its primary contests Tuesday, kicking off the 2014 election season with two top Republicans guarding their seats in Congress against conservative challengers and gubernatorial candidates Wendy Davis and Greg Abbott ready to square o...
Kelly Grossman's insight:

For those who missed the results of the Texas primary elections this week... and for those who are interested in voting in the runoff elections in May. Here is more information on upcoming election dates: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2014dates.shtml. ;

 

Also, if you're seeking to better understand the open primary system in Texas, here are some articles that might help: 

http://ivn.us/2012/05/22/texas-semiopen-primary/.

 

HAPPY SPRING BREAK!

more...
Shelby Payton Salkar's curator insight, March 20, 2014 11:31 AM

The Texas primaries starting off in 2014 consisted of a lot of movement and tenured roles being replaced. Headlines were spotlighted on the top two conservative challengers and gubernational candidates Wendy Davis and Greg Abbott battling out for the seat. Also The Tea Party made big strides this primary for Texas with 4 out of the 5 recomended candidates won with the last one getting a runoff. This helps The Tea Party with reconginition in this red state. On top of that the Lone Star State democrats are pushing to finally make Texas a blue state when Rick Perry tries for the presidency race. In effect, will cause mayhem in the senate for electoral seats. Very interesting Ms. Grossman. 

Shelby Mench's curator insight, March 20, 2014 11:59 AM

The basic foundation of the constitutional belies of the founders of the constitution was that in short, it was put into place to be fair and to avoid corruption from all levels so that everyone was getting an equal opportunity. The most common way of thinking and to get votes is to think of the fact that states which are larger, are allocated more electoral votes so people should look to gain their votes. The main objective is to get  those states and then also the states which typically vote the same way each year. If the college is not able to choose an obvious winner then the House votes for the top three. A lot of people don’t like this because they felt it did not work out right when Bush won the electoral votes and AlGore won the popular vote and this was reiterated with the recounts. In my opinion this is a good thing because I think a majority of states should have electoral votes because it helps to not only eliminate any doubts but it help to prevent any flaw and to ease people’s minds.

Linda Pierre's curator insight, March 20, 2014 12:11 PM

www.scoop.it/t/ap-u-s-government-politics

Scooped by Kelly Grossman
Scoop.it!

Due by 2/24: Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001

Due by 2/24: Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001 | AP U.S. Government & Politics | Scoop.it
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.
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the reading in which you answer the following questions  - by class time on Monday, 2/24!

1. The article explains why Gallup chose a 13-year comparison. Do the historical events of this period explain the changes in public opinion? Why or why not?

2. Examine the chart comparing Democrats' and Republicans' levels of satisfaction. Do these results coincide with your expectations (based on the textbooks' depiction of American liberalism and conservatism)? Why or why not?

3. Based on these results, which public policy changes are likely to be supported by each party?

4. The sampling error for this poll is +/- 4%. What does this mean, and how might it impact your interpretation of the data presented?

more...
Hannah Larson's curator insight, February 25, 2014 9:17 AM

1. The historical events of the period have greatly affected the results of this poll. 9/11 and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed American approval of our standing in the world and our foreign affairs for the worse. The end of the dot com boom and the beginning of the 2008-2009 recession significantly alterered people's views of the economy. They now disapprove of the state of the economy significantly  more than in the past.

2. For the most part these results coincide with democratic and republican views. Republicans show more approval of the state of the environment and gun policy while Democrats show more approval of social policies such as the legalization of gay marriage and Social Security and Welfare programs. I found it interesting that the two parties' approval of many issues such as quality of public education and quality of medical care are almost the same. Republicans show less concern for the environment and they do not support stricter gun laws, so these approval ratings make sense. Democrats endorse more support of scoial issuessuch as gay marriage and more government sponsored programs for the people to use. Their support of gay marriage and socil securoty and welfare makes sense. I believe both parties share the same approval or dissaproval on some issues because most people are moderate but call themselves a democrat or republican. Most take a republican view on most things and a democratic on others or vice versa.

3. Democrats will more likely favor policies such as the affordable health care act and support social welfare programs.Republicans will favor policies that involve less government control such as tax cuts and less strict gun laws.

4. This means that the data taken could be a lot closer than what is seen. Issues where the ratings seperated by 8% could lead to actual results of the same approval rating. This completely changes the readers' view on data taken over energy policies and federal taxes. Some of the data is so close that when the percentage error is taken into acoount, democrats may have more approval of an issue than republicans or vice versa. This can be seen in data taken for control of crime, quality of medical care, and race relations.

Jorge Lopez0408's curator insight, April 10, 2014 1:14 PM
Kelly Grossman's insight:

Rescoop to your own page and write a reflection on the reading in which you answer the following questions  - by class time on Monday, 2/24!

1. The article explains why Gallup chose a 13-year comparison. Do the historical events of this period explain the changes in public opinion? Why or why not? Yes it does since the change of ideas and problems to change first. The the shift in problems for others have shifted from governmental taxation to Gay and Lesbian rights of marriage.

2. Examine the chart comparing Democrats' and Republicans' levels of satisfaction. Do these results coincide with your expectations (based on the textbooks' depiction of American liberalism and conservatism)? Why or why not? Yes they do since the republicans have their own likes and dislikes and vice-versa, for the democrats. The changes and laws placed that are new will effect the mind shifts of the people of the certain party that would affect their future.

3. Based on these results, which public policy changes are likely to be supported by each party? The Military and terrorist defensive increased by both parties to lessen the fear of their lives. The future and safety of the country is their first priority.

4. The sampling error for this poll is +/- 4%. What does this mean, and how might it impact your interpretation of the data presented? It isn't too much of a sampling error that affects the data by the error. The 4% doesn't effect much of the side i believe in as i see the data well built in how the percentage of the both parties was taken.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 15, 2014 12:04 AM

Yes, because ever since the economic downturn and 9/11 Americans have altered their views towards the economy and has lost confidence in the government and its policies.

Yes, because Democrats seem to be more for liberalism while Republicans are concerned lean towards conservatism.

Republicans would strengthen the economy, set immigration laws, and limit health care while Democrats would set strict gun regulations and preserve the economy.

It means that there is a possibility of a small percent error. However, it has no impact on the major interpretation of each side for each topic.