Kim's BHS GOPO
2 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Kim Do from AP U.S. Government & Politics
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 | Kim's BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Here's how President Obama's budget would grow our economy and expand #OpportunityForAll → http://go.wh.gov/ctxpdE

Via Kelly Grossman
Kim Do's insight:

1. Declines in the rate of growth of health care and the decline of their actual cost are largely the reasons for the rapid rate of decline in the deficit. Medicare and Medicaid are some of the largest government programs and if the growth rate of their costs is decreasing, the budget deficit is decreasing on a large scale.

2. The President's proposed budget would continually decrease budget deficits every year. Soon that deficit is projected to fall under the deficit baseline of 3.4% and into a healthier 1.6%. With this dramatic decrease in the deficit, to allows for money to be spent on other issues to promote progress.

3. The President's budget is going to place money in areas where he personally thinks the economy will be affected in the best way, while still compromising and using Congress' efforts to try and allocate the spending. Obama is going to use the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative in which he tries to invest money money in areas that need it the most and that achieves the goals of this initiative, such as investing money in 35 different promise zones, or zones that are economically challenged, further shrinking economic disability for people, something that has support from each party. All these initiative investments, including others as well, would lead to a total of $56 billion in investments and allowing most of it to go to defense, something not normal for Democratic ideology. This further displays how Obama is willing to still invest money in economic and social problems while, at the same time, is compromising with Congress' wants in allocating discretionary spending.

4. The President's budget proposal is projected to decrease the budget deficit by an outstanding amount. However, not everyone is going to benefit. This could mean that, in order to benefit one group, taxes will be raised on another. Healthcare programs will also suffer a bit due to half of discretionary investments being spent on defense. Although the proposal does has its cons in some areas, there are pros. The emphasis and target on education and reducing economic disabilities for some groups, while managing to stay under the budget deficit baseline, I think, makes this budget proposal a good one.

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.

Rescooped by Kim Do from AP U.S. Government & Politics
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 | Kim's BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
President pushing contractor changes with executive orders, moving without help from Congress

Via Kelly Grossman
Kim Do's insight:

1. President Obama has chosen to enact an executive order regarding pay of federal employees because he is lacking congressional support to raise wages and end the gender pay gap. So he is using his  powers on a part of the economy that the president has direct access to. This will show that Obama is willing to take action without Congress' approval.

2. The limitations on Obama’s executive order are he does not have the support of Congress behind his initiatives. Limitations of executive orders in general are that they cannot be abused and need to be in the realm of powers that the president is allowed to have. Pushing these orders too far could call into question the constitutionality of the president's actions.

3. Criticisms being levied against Obama's use of executive orders is Republicans think he is testing the limits of executive power and, so he should work side-by-side with Congress.

4. The criticism specific to his order is that people believe it will place companies in a strain causing them to increase their costs. 

5. The White House has chosen not to address the policy area pertaining to protecting gays who work for federal contractors and their rights.

6. The Obama administration may be hesitant to address this area because it is an area that has many different conflicts and taking a clear stand would lead to controversy. So, the White House would rather be cautious and urge the House to pass a bill granting equal protection to all.

 

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 Kim Do from AP U.S. 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
Kim Do's insight:

1. Gerrymandering is the practice of politicians re-drawing Congressional districts to find friendly voters in order to stay in power regardless pot public opinion. Gerrymandering was first used by Elbridge Gerry in 1812, who was a Massachusetts governor, to ensure votes and a victory. He drew a contorted district that looked like a salamander, giving the practice the name "gerrymandering."

2. Some characteristics of redrawn districts is that they tend to be strange in shape and resemble different shapes, all to get a majority of a party's voters.

3. House seats are reapportioned every 10 years based off of a census conducted.

4. A potential solution is to create electoral maps based on geography and population to eliminate the politics.

5. By allowing this potential solution to take place, incumbents may see fewer votes in their favor, however, they would probably still win because they usually get reelected due to experience and name recognition.

6.Yes, there similarities between potential outcomes with the Electoral College and gerrymandering. Since gerrymandering is favoring one party by a majority, this party will most likely win more representation inside the Electoral College, allowing for the favored party to get its way.

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 Kim Do from AP U.S. Government & Politics
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 | Kim's BHS GOPO | Scoop.it

Via Kelly Grossman
Kim Do's insight:

1. The media is looking for someone who is popular nationwide as well as within their own party, already has a strong image in politics so that they have great potential and opportunity once they run, comes with little to no scandal, has had success in building policies, and has a history of outstanding credentials and achievements. The ideals that the media are looking for are sought in both parties, however, it seems that they have already chosen who they are specifically looking at for the Democratic party whereas they are more broad pertaining to who exactly they really want for the Republican prty.

2. Sabato is not really concerned or addressing either party's platform. Instead, he focuses more broadly on the fact of whther or not each candidate has an outstanding liberal or conservative record.

3. A "permanent presidential campaign" means that politics is an important career that requires years to prove that a politician is good enough for the presidential position. So, anyone who has the potential to become president in the political world must be carefully examined and analyzed for years pior to any campaign, whether or not he/she decides to run.

4. I think that being identified as an early leader in the presidential race has its advatanges because now the media and the people become interested in that frontrunner. Their popularity increases, something anyone running needs, and people become more familiar with them. However, being in the constant spotlight leaves one open to constant criticism and scrutiny, but that comes for almost every candidate, frontrunner or not.

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.
Rescooped by Kim Do from Kim's BHS GOPO
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 | Kim's BHS 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 Kelly Grossman, Kim Do
Kim Do's insight:

1.) Democrats are hopeful of a party realignment in Texas because there is a growing number of minorities, mainly Hispanics, that tend to lean more liberal. With this growing number, their votes supporting the Democratic party has the potential to cause a shift, especially since Texas holds the second largest Hispanic population in the country. This is related to the concept of minority majority because the largest growing minority group are the Hispanics meaning that their political views will be heard and will cause an impact that fuels the Democrats hopes in Texas for a political realignment especially if voter participation increases.

2.) Trends in party identification within the state of Texas show that Republicans have made significant political gains while those who identified themselves as Democratic, decreased. A larger number of Texans consider themselves Republican rather than Democratic. Texan Hispanics, however, have increasingly shifted more to the conservative side, although many of them still primarily identify themselves as Democrats.

3.) Political participation among Hispaincs is low. White Texans have a higher voter participation rate and they tend to vote for the Republican party, ensuring that Texas remains red.

4.)Telephone interviews that included a random sample of more than 170,000 adults from each state were conducted for the entire year of 2013 and tracked. The respondents spoke Spanish and called from both landlines and cellular devices and chosen randomly. Samples were also weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, match the national demographics of gender, age, race, and much more.

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

Rescooped by Kim Do from AP U.S. Government & Politics
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 | Kim's BHS 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 Kelly Grossman
Kim Do's insight:

1. Legality and fairness of affirmative action programs, saving the Voting Rights Act, and the refusal to recognize same sex marriage on the mere basis of the Constitution are some issues and decisions that have been consistently favored in Roberts court decisions. These decisions are meant to favor Conservative Republicans and he has even tried to get liberals to participate in compromises that seem to be of conservative ideology. The court also favors whatever is "good for business interests and bad for the Obama administration," meaning that they support and favor business.

2. A precedent is how past cases have been ruled. The court overruled a precedent when it allowed unlimited spending for corporations contributing towards an election. The court has also been extremely pro-business during this century so their rulings have been based on precedents that allow them to be pro-business.

3. The President may want to compromise with the conservative court with the support of the liberals. He cannot let some liberals be persuaded into agreeing with conservative compromises alone. Compromises must benefit both parties and have the backing of both ideologies.

4. The Justice considered the court's "swing vote" is Justice Kennedy. The court is usually divided when it comes to cases that involve issues known to have extremely liberal and extremely conservative views, leaving a "swing vote" to decide the decision. 

5. There is little to no bias in the article because the article merely displays the facts of the Roberts Court and the little success Obama and the liberals have had in it. It also shares what the Roberts Court tends to favor and how they get liberals to agree with them.

 

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.

Rescooped by Kim Do from AP U.S. Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General

Senate Balks at Obama Pick for Surgeon General | Kim's BHS 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 Kelly Grossman
Kim Do's insight:

1. The NRA has pursued a campaign in which it gets its abundance of members to side against Dr. Murthy's nomination. They have also sent grass-roots alerts to emails that encourage them to contact their senators and ask for their opposition against President Obama's antigun nominee. The NRA's specific concerns stem from Murthy's views on antigun laws and restrictions. These specific concerns include Murthy's want to place limits on ammunition purchases, a ban on certain firearms, and the removal of restrictions that keep some organizations from antigun research. He also calls for a federal gun buyback program for weapons and for mandatory safety training for those who posses a gun.
2. At stake for the Senators if they say "yes" to Murthy is the risk of negatively affecting their annual rating from the NRA. Their greatest concern lies with all the Democrats who represent states where opposing the N.R.A. could cost them a close race, states such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Montana.
3. The President chooses the nominee for the position of surgeon general and tries to get this nominee past his own party.
4. The White House could choose a different nominee whose views on gun control are less "radical" than Murthy's, as the NRA would put it. They could also get Murthy to focus less on gun control and more on issues that would please both the NRA and the Republicans. Other strategies would be working with Democratic leaders to gain more support, delaying a vote until after the midterm elections, or allowing Dr. Murthy to withdraw completely and decline his nomination. The White House learned that their nominee must not be too liberal because it could cause another  Republican blockade. They also learned not to select a candidate whose past overshadows his nomination and his potential.

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 Kim Do
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...
Kim Do's insight:

1. In the Article II Section I Clause II of the Constitution, it specifies how many members each state is allowed in the Electoral College. This number is equal to the total voting membership of the U.S. Congress. States get a specific number of electoral votes based on their population size which is determined every ten years during a conducted census. With the electoral college, the electors cast votes that formally elect the next President as well as The Vice President. The system was put in place to be a compromise between power allocated to the people, the popular vote, and a vote in Congress. The people vote for electors and so these electors, being a part of the state, formally vote for the president and vice president.

2. The strategy to get to 270 is to gain the electoral votes of the states with the most members in the electoral college. So, each candidate tries to win the popular vote in those states so that they gain electoral votes. "Safe states" allow for each candidate to count on that state and win their votes so the effort doesn't have to be put in as much as compared to winning over "swing states" because these states, mainly Florida and Ohio, tend to vote for either party.

3. The House of Representatives selects a winner from the Top 3 candidates with the most votes in the Electoral College. They allow for each state to have one delegation vote that contributes to finding the winner.

4. The 2000 election reenergized the critique of the Electoral College because since the race was so close, some critics said that the Electoral College gave an unfair advantage to states with a larger population. Candidates could win a popular vote but fail to win the electoral vote, making each candidate focus on states with a larger electoral members.

5. I am no satisfied with the current system because it does give states with a larger population more power by allowing them more votes in the Electoral College, making candidates focus their attention on each state unequally. The smaller populated states could feel even more degraded when they are compared to the swing states, in which those votes extremely matter when deciding on the next president. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Kim Do from AP U.S. Government & Politics
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 | Kim's BHS 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 Kelly Grossman
Kim Do's insight:

1. Yes, the historical events that have occurred since 2001 have substantially altered the ways of the lives and viewpoints of Americans. Events such as 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have had a profound impact on the public opinion of Americans. For example, after 9/11 a sense of American patriotism heightened and people saw the need for involvement in a foreign war where as before 2001, the U.S. was hardly restricted or involved in any major foreign wars. However, this also caused Americans to be dissatisfied with the country's position in the world. The 2008 recession also greatly shifted America's satisfaction with the economy, proving that major events leave imprint that cause the public opinion of the country to be altered. 

2. Yes, the chart coincides with the textbook's depiction of American liberalism and conservatism. Republicans are more concerned and dissatisfied which problems that find to create a bigger and more controlling federal government. Issues such as affordable health care and Social Security are not as satisfying to them because it causes to create a larger role that governments have in people's lives. They are less satisfied with issues that go against conservative nature. Liberals are more satisfied with issue that create a larger role of government in people's lives. They are more satisfied with the impacts that advance opportunity for everyone with the help of government assistance.

3. Republicans would like to see reforms in immigration made, limiting the amount given by the government for affordable health care, limit the amount spent on government programs, and focus widely on putting the economy back on track. Democrats will focus on reforms concerning better regulations and laws on environmental issues, gun control, and more government intervention involving efforts to help those in poverty and homeless.

4. The sampling error means that the results given are not entirely representative of the entire population, although it is extremely close. Since the error that arises is so low, this means that the sample of the population taken was fairly and accurately representative of the whole population although, not 100 percent representative of the entire population. This impacts my interpretation of the data presented as it shows that many Americans share this view and that this is not just the perspective of only a small part of the population.

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.

Rescooped by Kim Do from AP U.S. Government & Politics
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 | Kim's BHS 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 Kelly Grossman
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