Cole Hagar's RHS GOPO
6 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Cole Hagar from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

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

Here's What You Need to Know About the President's 2015 Budget - DUE 4/25 | Cole Hagar's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Here's how President Obama's budget would grow our economy and expand #OpportunityForAll → http://go.wh.gov/ctxpdE

Via Christine Thompson
Cole Hagar's insight:

 

1. OMB Deputy Director Brian Deese says that the reason for the rapid rate of decline in the deficit is due to healthcare being nationalized and constant job creation.

2. According to Mr. Deese, the proposed budget deficits will continue to fall through 2024 due to the President’s plans and policies that he thinks will do away with waste.

3. The President is distributing the discretionary funding by empowering in things such as research projects that will ultimately benefit our economy in the long run. His initiative is already paid for taking into consideration the deficits.

4. The cons include the nationalization of healthcare which hurts almost everyone except the people without healthcare. The pro is the investment in our future investments which will ultimately help the economy in the long run.

more...
Jessie Doege's curator insight, April 28, 2014 1:32 PM

Theoretically, President Obama's "2015 Budget" would help "grow" our economy and allow it to expand. While personally I don't believe Obama and his staff have EVER handled the deficit problem correctly, and highly doubt that they'll start cutting down on spending out of the blue (President Obama has added more to the deficit than any other US president in office, and has done virtually nothing to cut back on spending) here's what the proposed "Budget Plan" would "help" accomplish, and how.

Thanks to lowered costs on Medicare and Medicaid, the budget staff will be able to constrict back costs on health care and keep them low. Theoretically, our deficit is supposed to decrease to more than half of its original percentage by the turn of 2014 by DEFAULT. As in, without the President even implementing his budget plan, the deficit is expected to drop dramatically over the coming years. Does that mean it will actually occur? Time will only tell. However, we are all aware that the president is still going to "attempt" to cut down the budget himself, and with his implemented plan, GDP is "scheduled" to drop down to approx. 1.6%. Sure, the idea of a drastically lowered deficit is dandy, but one has to be realistic and acknowledge if such a thing is even possible under the current presidency, or, any presidency, for that matter. Yes, having cutbacks on discretionary spending would help lower the deficit and keep healthcare costs constricted, but there is no evidence that this will indeed take place. All in all, the White House-published video explaining the deficit and the president's strategy to cut it down within the span of a few years seemed vague, ambiguous, and over simplified. There are many more factors that go into the controlling of the deficit than the white house staff is allowing the public to believe. It just isn't that simple to cut back a deficit and to hold the reigns of such an unstable economy.If the president cares so much about implementing less spending and cutting back the deficit, than why is he waiting until the middle of his second turn to actually do something about it? I would have loved to see some of this economical "hope and change" back in 2008. 

#OpportunityForWho?

 

 

 

Lauren Smith's curator insight, April 29, 2014 11:50 PM

1. The rapid rate of decline in the deficit is due to a historic reduction in the rate of growth in health care costs. 

2. The President's budget for 2015 will affect future deficits by decreasing the deficit more each year. 

3. The President's budget is trying to build on Congress's effort to compromise in the allocation of discretionary policy by bringing the democrats and republicans to work together to agree on a budget that has set limits for discretionary spending. The President's proposal shows how he'd build on this compromise process and invest in potential resources that would strengthen the economy. 

4. Pros of the proposal:

The deficit would decrease while the opportunities for Americans would increase. it promotes more efficient government management, and with the help of American Opportunity Tax Credit 11.5 million families can pay for their children to go to college.

Cons of the proposal:

It will take years to see the solid changes in the deficit to take effect in the economy and the plan will need bipartisan party support to work, and right now the majority of the government is divided. 

Tanner Roan's curator insight, April 30, 2014 7:50 PM

1. The rapid decrease of the deficit comes from the lowered cost of things like healthcare.

2. According to Mr. Deese, the deficit would begin to fall to around 1.6% as long as they keep decreasing the costs of things like healthcare.

3. The new budget is proposing to focus more on infrastructure and early education, but even then no one program is getting special attention budget wise. a component is the increase of funding for preschool education.

4. The idea of splitting the budget to help in so man ways sounds like a good plan to help support growth in the nation, but at the same time it seems to be very idealistic about what it will actually be able to accomplish. when spreading the budget out over so many fields, it can be easy to overestimate the impact it will actually have on the nation.

Rescooped by Cole Hagar from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

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

Obama going it alone, pressing ahead on reforms for federal contractors with executive orders - DUE 4/11! | Cole Hagar's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it
President pushing contractor changes with executive orders, moving without help from Congress

Via Christine Thompson
Cole Hagar's insight:

1. President Obama chose to enact an executive order regarding pay of federal employees by eliminating the pay gap between both races and genders while allowing the people to have the ability to access the documentation regarding the pay between the groups. Executive orders usually pass since Congress has already given their discretion to the President, thus creating very few limitations/conflicts. However, federal courts can change that by retracting them or making them unlawful.
2. Many people believe the President is going around Congress to get legislation passed and is abusing his separation of powers from them. The criticism behind this one is that he is only passing this executive order in order to bring in more pay equality bills. Others believe that this will open up many class action suits and they want those to be avoided.
3. The White House has chosen not to address the Gay Rights groups who want legislation to be put in place dealing with their own rights as employees.
The Obama administration is avoiding this issue because it is a highly controversial issue. It would cause a huge disapproval rating which would ultimately hurt Obama causing him to get less of his legislation passed.

more...
Ivan Dominguez's curator insight, April 14, 2014 9:02 AM

Obama is enacting an executive order to raise the pay for federal employees,and so women get paid equally as men. The order needs to get approved by the senate,and Obama is lacking congressional support. The limitations are that the president is limited to feral government contacts and has to be approved by congress. The major criticism is that the executive order will affect the basic cost of a product because they have to find a way to pay those employees, and overall the result will be inflation. The White House decided to not include an executive order on gay right issues because the Obama doesn’t want to interfere if Congress may give support in new legislation because that as that may make Congress give due to redundancy

Alex Speed's curator insight, April 16, 2014 11:54 AM

1.) Obama was forced to use an executive order because he does not have the support of congress, however he can pass legislation that will have the same effect by using an executive order. However,the limit of using an executive order is that it does not effect all US citizens.

2.) The general population is skeptical of executive orders because they do not require congressional approval, which seems like a manipulation of government. This specific order faces scrutiny for its potential with lawsuits on private companies 

3.) The Obama administration has chosen not to enact orders that will effect sexual discrimination because that is congress's situation. Obama doesn't want to create sort of bias in congress that will negatively impact this legislation

Taig Lyons's curator insight, April 17, 2014 9:59 AM

 

Why has President Obama chosen to enact an executive order regarding pay of federal employees?
The president can have an impact over the part of the economy he directly controls. This move looks good and can have an impact with federal contractors in the broader economy.

What are the limitations on Obama’s executive order and executive orders in general?
Executive orders apply pretty much only to sectors the president has direct control over, like the bureaucracy and the military.

What criticism is being levied against presidents’ use of executive orders? What is the criticism of this specific executive order?
The criticism is that the order will effect very few people and that it's really just an example more than anything. There's no pressure for non-federal contractors to follow suit.

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?
The White House has not made an executive order regarding the protection of gays and lesbians in the federal bureaucracy, because it hopes to get a law passed that would cover this topic nationwide.

Rescooped by Cole Hagar from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

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

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, Christine Thompson
Cole Hagar's insight:

 1. Due to reapportionment, the state legislatute redraws district lines every ten years. The state legislature does this in order to help achieve the majority party’s triumph in ordeer to further help the incumbency of the candidate.

 

2. Gerrymandering almost always assures the incumbency of the House of Representatives because the state legislatures re-draw the districts in order to best themselves with the best of the voters.

 

3.The potential solution provided in this video would be to draw district lines according to population, demographics, and geography in order to try and make sure that the vote is fair. This would not be good for  incumbents’ future elections because the majority of their voters would now be spread out making it much harder for them in future elections.

 

 4. Both gerrymandering and the Electoral College are kind of set up for the failure of the majority.. Gerrymandering allows incumbents basically choose their voters by re-drawing the district lines. This almost makes certain that they will be reelecteed which makes it seem that voting doesn’t even matter. The Electoral College can also make an election certain by the use of their ideas, since the American majority doesn’t always show the true meaning.

 

5. Gerrymandering shouldn’t be justified because a not fair representation making it go against the idea of the American democracy.

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. 

Rescooped by Cole Hagar from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

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

Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball » 2016 presidential ratings update: Nothing but questions on the Republican side | Cole Hagar's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it

Via Christine Thompson
Cole Hagar's insight:

1. The Republicans are searching for a tough, self-determining leader that has the know-how and status to withstand criticism. The Democrats seem to want to just put Hillary Clinton at the top because her nomination seems to be likely decision.

2. Sabato doesn’t really seem too focused on the platforms of the candidates and is more focused on how the media views them.

3. The Permanent Presidential Campaign is the idea that the presidential office extends into the candidates past and future. Presidential candidates ultimately give up their own personal lives and lead their life as a president till they die. I think this speaks to the way that media has invaded our government.

4. There is an advantage of being identified as an early leader. It allows people to be recognized by the people sooner than the other candidates. This allows the people to become more informed about that particular candidate. However, there is a disadvantage to it as well. For instance, if that candidate has anything to hide or does not have a concrete campaign plan, then that candidate could hurt from it.

more...
Sean Kelly's curator insight, March 6, 2014 10:19 PM

1. The media is, overall, looking for a candidate that is somehow associated with government, and not associated with the government at large. The candidate needs connections, but not popular connections - they need to have a name of themselves without latching on to anyone elses name. They also are looking for a good personality, and an appeal to both sides of the political parties. This is true for Democrats and Repbulicans, except for tiny details - mainly Democrats need to have a steady, but not heavy, tone of liberalism while the Repbulicans need to tone down their conservatism.

2. Sabato does not mention party platforms for the candidates, except with Brian Schweitzer when his conseravtism on guns and the environment are listed as disadvantages.

3. the "permanent presidential campaign" refers to the tendency of government officials to always be vying for the presidential slot in the closest election year. There is always consideration for who would be the next president.

4. I would say it would be a disadvantage to be labeled as an early leader - people like the idea of an underdog story, of someone who has taken a rise to power. To be labeled as an early leader would be to be put as an "obvious choice," and so would be to be put in a bad light with the public as they feel their opinion is being downtrodded by that specific candidate.

Christine Thompson's comment, March 18, 2014 4:10 PM
I noticed that some people have the same/very similar wording on the "permanent presidency" question. Please do not "borrow" another student's work... and please be careful of plagiarism.
Lauren Smith's curator insight, March 19, 2014 6:44 AM

1. The media is looking for someone who is nationally known and has political experience, supported by some poplitical group, and they must be dynamic in speeches and campains. In addition, the canditate should have beliefs that are well alligned with their political party and have fundraising resources.

2. Sabato is focused more on the basic qualities of the politicians and has pointed out positive and negitive aspects for each potential candidate. He is not focused on each potential candidate's entire political platform yet because the point of his article is to introduce the candidates as potential, not certain, runners.

3. When Sabato refers to  the "permanent presidential campaign" he is refering to the presidential campaign in 2016 where the candidates for each party are surely running for president. These are the people that have decided to run and are no longer potential candidates.

4. I do not think there is an advantage in being identified as an early leader in the presidential race because the media can draw negitive attention to the candidate before they can defend or explain themselves. It doesn't matter who is the leader at the beginning of the race, it only matters who is the leader at the end of it. Therefore, it would be pointless to take any lead before the presidential race has begun because no one cares about that yet.

Rescooped by Cole Hagar from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red - DUE 2/20

Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red - DUE 2/20 | Cole Hagar's RHS GOPO | 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.

Via Christine Thompson
Cole Hagar's insight:

1. Democrats are hopeful of a party realignment in Texas in order transform the nation's largest reliably Republican state into a Democratic state. This relates to minority majority in the way that the minority Hispanic population of America make up the majority Hispanic population of Texas and is still continuing to grow which is helping “tilt Texas.”

2. Texan Hispanics have gradually become more Republican. However, Hispanics living in Texas have followed the broad national trend in terms of primarily identifying as Democrats. Also, 61% of white Texans identify or lean Republican.

3. Hispanics are only 19% of registered voters. Meaning that although there are many Hispanics, most of them are not registered to vote which makes the party realignment in the near future unlikely. This ultimately proves the concept of political participation by showing that the people may think one way, but their participation is the only thing that works.

4. Gallup called cellphones and landlines with a minimum quota of 50% for each. It was a random selection of 178,527 adults from all 50 states. Spanish speakers were allowed in the poll. The phone numbers were chosen at random. Landline calls were given to the household member that had the most recent birthday in order to randomize the process even more. This sampling error included the computed design effects for weighting.

more...
Holland Coleman's curator insight, February 20, 2014 11:28 PM

1. Democrats are hopeful of a party realignment in Texas because of the state's growing Hispanic population--Hispanics are consistently left-leaning--which represents an influx of blue voters that could tip the scales of the state. Soon, the state's white cititzens will make up less than half of the population, and the state will have a minority majority.

 

2. The party identification trend in Texas is that any given demographic will be more right-leaning than nationally. For instance, even though Hispanics in Texas still lean left, the margin by which Hispanic blue voters outweigh Hispanic red voters is much smaller. 

 

3. Despite any meteoric rise in Texas' Hispanic population, this demographic is unlikely to exercise its newfound political clout because Hispanic voters are much less likely to participate in elections than other demographics. The real challenge for Democrats therefore is not to win over the Hispanic population--they already lean left--but to get them to register and vote.

 

4. The study was a random survey conducted by telephone. Respondents were found using random-dialing methods in an even geographical spread. 50% of respondents were reached by landline, and the other 50% of respondents were reached by cell phone, to control for demographic trends regarding phone use. 

Lauren Smith's curator insight, February 21, 2014 12:22 AM

1. Democrats are hopeful for a party realignment in Texas because Texas is predominantly a Republican state, yet this poll suggests that the democrats are pulling more weight in Texas than before. If Texas were to become a more democratic state, then the Democrats would have a larger advantage in the number of voters and influence. The population of Hispanics in Texas is increasing in Texas and, along with African Americans in the state, are voting more democratic. However, the majority of Texans are white and vote republican. This shows that the minority majority struggle that the minorities are beginning to surpass the number of majority people in Texas. 

2. The trends in party identification in Texas are that the white Texans vote mostly republican, while the minorities vote more democratic. The Hispanic Texans were mostly republican in 2008 during the time of Obama's election, but now they have tended to follow the national trend to vote more democratic.  

3. Gallup suggests that the current situation of small percentages of Hispanic adult registered voters will unlikely cause a realignment of Texas to a democratic state. This is related to political participation in that there is a low percentage of Hispanic Texans who are actually registered to vote. This causes the Hispanic democrats to be poorly represented in the state.  Therefore the republicans who vote will keep Texas a more republican state.

4. Steps that were taken by Gallup to reduce sampling error were to conduct recent telephone interviews (in Spanish as well if needed to communicate to the respondent) with a random sample that included over 178,000 adults in all 50 states and in D.C., the interviews were 50% on cell phones and 50% on land lines, and there were weighted samples based on unequal selection probability and national demographics. 

Jordan Nguyen's curator insight, February 23, 2014 5:04 PM

1. If Texas has a party realignment it could be a huge change to the republican-democrat ratio. Texas is the largest republican majority state.  The minority Hispanic population as a cumulative has become the larger majority. The population is under the democratic influence more than anything else. 

2. The larger white majority will identify republican. The rest of the population will identify as democratic. 

3. Even though the minority is slowly becoming a majority the minority Hispanic population does not yet build the larger portion of population.The smaller Minority groups that makeup a majority combined are least likely to vote as well. This hinders the democratic party because there is no political participation.

4. There are several different groups looked at and not a single controlled specific type targeted, but the idea that the poll only targets people in Texas and divides them by race is not helping low sampling error. 

Rescooped by Cole Hagar from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

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

Roberts Pulls Supreme Court to the Right Step by Step - DUE 4/18! | Cole Hagar's RHS GOPO | 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.

Via Christine Thompson
Cole Hagar's insight:

1. The Roberts Court has consistently sided with big businesses. The Chamber of Commerce has gained in most of its cases. It has cut back on class actiopn suits and workplace discrimination ideals.
2. Precedent is the idea that a court will follow the decisions made by previous/superior courts. The Roberts court continues to base itself on the ideas of previous court decisions regarding their cases.
3. The Obama administration has a poor record because it is too liberal for a Supreme Court that made up of mostly conservatives. For Obama to pursue greater success in the Court, he will have to decrease the amount of liberal maning that is behind the legislation he is trying to get passed.
4. Justice Kennedy is considered to be the swing vote. He is not a pure conservative or a pure liberal. He has sided liberal on 4 cases, and conservative on 6. Therefore, he is unpredictable and considered the swing vote.
5. There is discernable bias in the way this article was written. The opinions spoke in this article are for the conservatives. It talks badly about the Obama administration and speaks highly of the Warren Court.

more...
Anna Fisher's curator insight, April 21, 2014 11:56 PM

1. The opposite party has been favored in Robert's court conditions. "He took pains to note that eight members of the court, including its four liberals, had already agreed that “things have changed in the South” and that the voting law seemed at odds with principles of federalism and “equal sovereignty” among the states."

2. "In the last term, the court issued 73 signed decisions in argued cases, in line with recent terms and about half the number the court routinely issued two decades ago. Justice Kennedy was in the majority 83 percent of the time in divided cases, trailed by Chief Justice Roberts at 73 percent. Justice Scalia brought up the rear, at 58 percent." So, Chief Robert's precedent would be Justice Kennedy and the majority does not typically rule in Robert's court.

3. “Obama’s poor overall record,” Professor Winkler added, “is largely due to philosophical differences with the court’s conservative majority.” The way this could be fixed is through compromise in parties, maybe not being too liberal and considering some of the conservative ideas. 

4. Justice Salina is considered the swing vote. Salina said that the majority needs to respect the President and the views of this. People still needs the power to govern themselves.

5. No, this article is factual and simply allows the reader to make their own opinion on the matter. 

Stephanie Shirley's curator insight, April 23, 2014 12:35 AM

1.The Roberts Court has a very conservative record that has been beneficial for business interests and detrimental to consumers and employees. They  cut back on class action lawsuits and favored arbitration. 

2. Precedent is making a decision based on prior decisions. In business cases, the court largely reaffirmed its prior decisions.
3. Obama's poor record is due to philosophical differences with the Supreme Court Justices. One strategy that the President could pursue to see greater success in the Court would be to compromise on issues and try to get legislation passed that is more bipartisan. 4. Justice Kennedy is considered the "swing vote" on the court because in some cases he votes liberal and in some he votes conservative. There are four liberals and four conservatives on the Court. 5. Yes, because it describes Chief Justice Roberts and his accomplishments in a positive way. "His patient and methodical approach has allowed him to establish a robustly conservative record."  
Ivan Dominguez's curator insight, April 24, 2014 12:41 AM

Roberts strongly supports conservative parties and decisions; “seven justices, including two liberals, agreed to sign an opinion that over time could restrict race-conscious admissions plans at colleges and universities.” This court has been the most pro-business in the past few years. A precedent is citing a previous case in order to successfully win a similar one. And Roberts court looks at all precedents set before any case is tried. The Obama administration has an overall poor record in defending their interests in the Supreme Court because the philosophical ideal differences within the administrations is very high. Justice Anthony Kennedy is most often the swing vote of the court. He typically goes back and forth between the conservatives and liberals. This article seems biased in favor of liberal stand points, but also gives credit to the Chief Justice  Roberts.

Rescooped by Cole Hagar from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General | Cole Hagar's RHS GOPO | 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.

Via Christine Thompson
Cole Hagar's insight:

1. The NRA is exercising its influence by encouraging their members to help control their senators or deal with disapproval ratings. The NRA is specifically concerned that Dr. Murthy will use his anti-gun position when he is surgeon general once his appointment is confirmed. 

2. The senators are supposed to back their supporters. The Democratic senators should back the president’s appointment because he is also Democratic. However, this creates concern. The senators have a two sided decision. They can either vote with their constituency and face presidential disapproval or vote with the president and run the risk of not being reelected by their constituency.

3. The President/White House plays a role in the confirmation process by suggesting the appointment of an individual for the office of their choice. Then it must be approved by a Senate majority. Thus the senators that are democratic should side with the President/White House appointment because the president is democratic.

4. They White House should reconsider their strategies and re-evaluate the idea of an automatic Democratic approval rating. The White House should choose easier cabinet members in order to ensure a vote. Therefore, the less radical the appointment is, the easier it will to get the votes.

more...
Sam Johnson's curator insight, April 7, 2014 9:59 AM

The NRA is exercising it's influence by basicaly telling democratic Senators in Conservative States if you support Obama's nomination, you will loose our support. The loss of the NRA's support could keep those democrats from being reelected. The White House could offer a compromise to get Murthy approved. For example they could offer to consider a ballanced budget bill in exchange for supporting Murthy.

Jordan Nguyen's curator insight, April 8, 2014 1:24 AM

1. The NRA is using it's influence in order to persuade the senators to disapprove of the appointment made by President Obama. With ties between the senate democrats and the White House already wearing thin, and the majority of the Democratic senators up for election, the senators are put in a tough situation.The nominee 'Dr. Murthy, who has voiced support for various gun control measures like an assault weapons ban, mandatory safety training and ammunition sales limits" which is upsetting to the NRA.

2. The senators have reached the beginning of the midterm election season and need to get reelected in order to climb to greater power. The NRA having so much influence to certain politics will have a major affect of campaigners who have already decided to approve of the appointment of Dr. Murthy. 

3. The President is the individual who nominates whomever to get appointed by the senate. Through confirmation the President may have a  "guestimate" at who will approve the appointment. 

4. The White House with its' influence may try to use that as bargain in rebuttal to the NRA which is threatening the Senators.  Dr. Murthy will probably be appointed but the completion of the official appointment itself will have to wait until after midterm elections. 

Zachary Smart's curator insight, April 8, 2014 11:52 PM

1.An interest group like the NRA is using its power to influence the appointment of the Attorney General because he opposes guns, therefor he is for gun regulation.

2. Senators who vote for Murphy are more likely to not be reelected in the states where the NRA holds power. This makes it to where their approval rating drops, and to where their constituents are likely to vote against them.

3. The White House/President has the ability to delay an appointment or remove the candidate from the process entirely. The Senate must approve/vote for the appointee, so the president and the senate have a tight relationship.

4. The president must have more support from the democratic senators over republicans if he is to have his appointment approved. The president recently found out that he has to make a compromise between both parties of the house.

Rescooped by Cole Hagar from RHS Gopo
Scoop.it!

Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained - Christina Greer - YouTube

View full lesson: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/does-your-vote-count-the-electoral-college-explained-christina-greer You vote, but then what? Discover how your i...

Via Cara Miller
Cole Hagar's insight:
1.     The constitutional basis for the Electoral College was founded on the idea that the central government should not be more powerful than the people during the time of an election. The Electoral College was put in place in order to represent the votes more just.2.     Safe states are states that almost always side with the same party every election. Swing states are states that switch parties nearly almost every election. The common strategy for most politicians is to attack the swing states much more than the safe states in order to get to 270 votes easier.3.     If a majority of the electoral vote is not reached, the decision goes to the House of Representatives. Each representative is given a vote for one the tying candidates.4.     The election of 2000 caused a lot of debate. Gore received the majority of the popular vote, while Bush received the majority of the electoral votes. This made the people question whether or not the Electoral College truly satisfy it’s the needs of the people’s interest.5.     I am satisfied with the current system. It has been proven to work with very little problems. The Electoral College makes the voting process simpler and causes it to be a better system.
more...
Cara Miller's curator insight, March 20, 2014 10:43 AM

1. The constitutional basis for creating the electoral system is based on the idea that the central government should not have an overwhelming amount of power in elections as the United States is run by the people. The Electoral college was a way to reconcile the difficulties of having the votes of the people represented in a more simplistic manner.

2. Safe states have always been and most likely remain the same as far as which party the electoral votes will be given to and they give candidates some election security. However, swing states require additional effort on the part of the candidate to ensure votes for their party because their electoral votes fluctuate between elections.

 

3. If a presidential candidate does not receive a majority of the electoral vote, the vote goes to the House of Representatives. Each representative is allowed to vote for one of the majority vote-getters. This has only occurred twice in United States history.

4. The election of 2000 caused great controversy because Al Gore received the most nationwide votes, but George Bush was declared president via electoral votes. This appointment raised the question of whether the electoral college was actually fulfilling its purpose of representing the people’s interest.

5. I am content with the current system because it has been tried and proven consistent throughout the years with only a few mishaps. Although individual interests are not always represented in the Electoral College, simplicity and success is ensured through a careful process.

Rescooped by Cole Hagar from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"
Scoop.it!

Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001 - DUE 2/24!

Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001 - DUE 2/24! | Cole Hagar's RHS GOPO | 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.

Via Christine Thompson
Cole Hagar's insight:

1. Due to the historical events in the 13-year comparison, the impact results into a large margin. This is due to the upsurge of terrorism and the creation of a recession. These few events on their own created large changes in the public’s opinion due to shifts in ideology that was either strengthened or injured by the events.

2. The results coincide with the textbook's depiction of liberalism versus conservatism. The Democrats are pleased with the following changes due to having the President be a Democrat. However, the Republicans seem to be less pleased due to their lack of representation, since the President in not a Republican.

3. Based on these results, Democrats seem likely to prefer changes in environmental controls, increases in gun control, and support on health care and abortion regulations. While, based on these results, Republicans seem likely to prefer an increase in national security, tighter abortion regulations, and lower taxes.

4. The error in this survey is larger than the previous one due to a lower poll pool. In my opinion, only using 1,018 people is not able to truly represent the ideas represented from the people of the United States of America. Due to this fact, my interpretation of the data presented is diminished because of indecisive opinions on the included issues.

more...
Anna Fisher's curator insight, February 24, 2014 1:41 PM

1. The historical events do change the opinions of the people, specifically 9/11, because it makes people lose trust in the government. The people are much less satisfied with the world affairs.

2. They do coincide with my expectations, because liberal/conservative usually go with republican and democratic ideas. Liberals believe that the state shouldn't play such a big role, while conservative believes in more strict law.

3. Republicans believe that the environment is doing pretty well, while the Democrats disagree. Democrats think that health care is doing great, while Republicans differ. The key points that Republicans and Democrats believe in, they disagree on.

4. This is the margin of error, so the people interviewed are fairly confident in their answer. Smaller the margin of error, the more reliable the poll. 

Sean Kelly's curator insight, February 24, 2014 11:34 PM

1. The terror attacks and the dot-com boom changes do explain the changes in public opinion because the relative feelings of safety and economic immunity, i.e. no one will mess with the US, are gone.

2. These results do coincide because the Democrats liberal views fit in with the government doing more to intervene with certain policies, and the conservative Republican views fit into the idea of Conservatives limiting government controls across all fronts, and their "return to the good times" attitude.

3. The Democrats would be more likely to support gun control and penal system reform, while the Republicans would enjoy a cut on the higher income bracket taxes and the loss of gun control laws.

4. The 4% error potential means that the sampling is most likely within 4% of the general popluations overall view. This means the data is not exactly precise, but does give a good ball park idea to work in for the numbers.

Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, March 3, 2014 4:32 PM

1. For the most part, yes, due to the war in the Middle East, however, not all social factors would be.

 

2. Yes. Democrats are more satisfied with liberal issues, and Republican favor conservative issues.

 

3. Democrats would probably push for more concern for global warming and tighter gun laws, as democrats are generally liberal. Republicans would probably push for less government intervention, as republicans are generally conservative.

 

4. The results could be shifted +/- 4%, which is relatively small. It puts into mind the thought that much of our information in corrupt.