Kara's RHS GOPO
5 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Kara Conway 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 | Kara'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
Kara Conway's insight:

1.Brian Deese  reasons that the rapid decline in the deficit is partially because health care costs are declining which allows the government to control the rate of it's growth. There is also more work towards the nation as a whole in infrastructure and such. These are investments that decrease the need to spend more money elsewhere and on other costs that might not benefit the economy best. 

2. The president's proposed budget would cause the deficits of the economy to be lower than if the economy followed the typically trajectory of the decrease in the deficits. This is because the President has many new policies that he would implement and allow the economy to expand. All the possible new legislation would help with education and innovation. These are investments that would help the economy in the future and possibly decrease the deficit even more.

3. The President's budget focuses mainly on the national security sector of the budget and the economic section of the budget at the same time. Also, not one institution is granted special preferance. Many groups like the NIH and promise zones are expanded enough to help out thousands of new people. One component of the President's initiative is greater funds for pre-school education. 100,000 new slots would allow many little kids the opportunity to gain a better education earlier on.

4.With the information given, the pros of the President's budget proposal are the tax cuts for families saving up for college education or retirement, the cuts on inefficient tax breaks and the expanison of innovation and the manufactoring sector of the economy. All these would benefit families greatly and provide for the upcoming generation of America. The cons of the budget proposal include the increase of infrastructure funds and the expansion of the income tax credit for people with more children. Though infrastructure is important, extra spending on that could be used for education or funds for programs that help the people themselves. With the tax credit, people are encouraged to have more children. This increases the population and will then lead to more people being dependent on government money.

more...
Cole Hagar's curator insight, April 28, 2014 1:40 PM

 

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.

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 Kara Conway 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! | Kara's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it
President pushing contractor changes with executive orders, moving without help from Congress

Via Christine Thompson
Kara Conway's insight:

Obama chose to use his executive power to enforce an executive order involving federal employee wages because he believes that they should be included in non-discriminating legislation. He wants the contractors to treat their employees respectfully and not discriminate when they talk about wages.All of this is to help the economy grow and to support less discrimination based on personal attributes. All of Obama's executive orders have to be passed by Congress. Without their approval, the bill cannot become a law. His new executive order must not put more burdens on federal contractors either.

Criticism of the president's use of executive orders includes how presidents try to use their powers to control any part of the economy that they can and that they sometimes ignore certain groups because they already extended power as much as they could. Obama's use of executive orders raised criticism about how the new legislation would increase costs and force contractors to grant employees special privileges that would not discriminate. 

The White House has chosen not to address gay rights when involving executive orders. They have not addressed this group of people because there would be an increase in controversy. The administration might not be able to pass the bill with a majority because of the nature of the topic. Also, specially mentioning one group of people in a bill discriminates against all the other groups who may still be discriminated against.

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 Kara Conway 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
Kara Conway's insight:

1. The  majority party in the  House decides where  new districts are drawn every 10 years after the census is taken. Their main purpose in redrawing the lines is to gain/retain he majority of the seats by having about 3/4ths of the districts supporting their party.

2. Gerrymandering allows for representatives to retain office even if the popular vote shows a win for another candidate. The incumbent will more likely have the support of his party so they will have a better chance of being reelected since they maintain a majority.

3. The solution provided in the video is to use geography and  population to produce districts for voting. Dividing up the are this way then does not guarantee an incumbents reelection because they do not have the support of the districts that they knew were for them. They are unsure if the people living in every district are the majority they hope they will be.

4. There are a few similarities between the electoral college and gerrymandering. Both of them involve a majority vote for a certain party. They will favor one party almost as in a winner-take-all system. Also, they both do not allow direct voting of the citizens in essence that the citizens cannot decide what district they want to be in and the electors vote on the president.

5. The fact that this process sometimes benefits both parties does not justify it because all it is is changing up districts for self benefit. If the House were to actually represent the different districts, there would be several changes and closer elections. The fact that certain parties decide how the outcomes of elections will probably be by their own work does not allow for the freedom of choice that the US says they allow.

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 Kara Conway 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 | Kara's RHS GOPO | Scoop.it

Via Christine Thompson
Kara Conway's insight:

1. According to the article, the media is looking for an ideal candidate who has successively accomplished changes in the past, has a record of making changes, and is popular among the people. This is similar for both parties but they do differ in that the Republican party focuses more on the connections to states while the Democratic party focuses on the future of the candidate.

2. Sabato focuses very little on the actual campaigns of the politicians.Most of the data in the tables are from past campaigns or perceptions of the possible candidates' future actions. He mentions the main ideas of the possible candidates' ideology.

3. "Permanent presidential campaign" meaens that the people running for office positions are forever trying to appeal to the citizens and gain support from them. The campaigning never ends but continues on as long as that person remains in politics. This makes the possibility of getting legislation passed difficult because the legislator is constantly just trying to gain support for their cause. A permanent campaign also challenges how the government supports a politician in their ideology.

4. I believe that there is an advantage to being a leader early in the presidential campaign. By being an early leader, the candidate has the confidence to continue to try especially hard to gain the position. There is an incentive because they know that a lot of people actually like them as a presidential candidate. Also, they will gain support from more people as they see that the candidate has high ratings among many groups. More support increases the funds that a candidate has for campaigning later on.

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 Kara Conway 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 | Kara'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
Kara Conway's insight:

Democrats are hopeful of a party realignment in Texas because minority groups, especially Hispanics, tend to associate themselves with the Democtaric party. This information accompanied by the fact that Hispanics are the majority in Texas could cause a shift if all of the Hispanics were registered and actually voted Democratic. This relates to minority majority because if all of the Hispanics were to register, they would have enough people to become the majority of voters. Typically, Texans tend to vote Republican. Gallup suggests that there is little chance that Texas will realign to the Democratic party because the Hispanics are also likely to vote Republican like the majority of the citizens in the state of Texas. This is related to political participation because if only a small portion of the population in a state votes, then there would be a different outcome than if everyone in the state voted. Whether Texas is Republican or Democratic is mainly based on the low turn out from minority groups. The Gallup poll ensured that there was a low sampling error by randomly sampling Americans from every state and from various ages. They also did random digit dialing for land lines and cell phones so they aren't contacting only one group of people. The poll could be conducted in Spanish for those people who could only speak Spanish and the person with the most recent birthday was asked to take the poll.

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 Kara Conway 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! | Kara'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
Kara Conway's insight:

1. In the Roberts court, the conservatives have been consistently favored. Chief Justic Roberts has been able to persudae that court's more "liberal justices to join compormise opinions" because conservative opinions are preferred. Also, Chief Justice Roberts tends to favor businesses. He typically rules in favor for "business interests" like when he recently ruled to further restrict the proces for suing a business.

2. A precedent is how a case was ruled in the past and it serves as an example for future rulings or decisions. The Roberts Court has decided to not rule on certain cases that they did not talk about in previous cases. For example, the court will not rule over thte gay-rights issue that has come up because there is no ruling on it in the past. Chief Justice Roberts also attempted to limit campaign finacing but he was accused of chanign a major precedent all b y himself.

3. The Obama administration has had a poor time trying to defend their interest in the courts because they are attempting to pass liberal laws/bills through a conservative majority. Most of the opinions and views of the Obama Administration are not the same as the majoirty in court. The President might attempt to persuade the Judges to listen to his opinions and compromise. He could reword his laws to make them seem more conservative so the law looks acceptable to the majority.

4. Justice Anthony Kennedy is considered the "swing" vote because he determines who can win the case if it is split 4 and 4 for each side. He is known as a crucial vote and has helped decide the outcome of a case 83% of the time by being a part of the majority. 

5. There is a slightly discernible bias in this articlebecause the article talks about how the laws that are passed under the conservative majority could be "pain tomorrow" for the liberals. This implies that the writer does not think the decisions of the court will benefit the liberals in the long run. Just the title of the article implies that the writer believed that Roberts gradually is forcing the Supreme Court to view the issue like he does.

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 Kara Conway 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 | Kara'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
Kara Conway's insight:

1. The NRA is exercising their influence by sending out letters to supporters of their cause that the new possible surgeon general is radical. They also are promising to ruin the reputation of any voters who vote for the new appointment. Their main concerns with Dr. Murthy is that if he would be chosen, legislation over gun control would be his main focus. There would be new legislation passed considered that would harm what the NRA stands for: use of guns without too many regulations.

2. Senators are at stake of losing their position if voting for the new appointment. 10 states, including Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana are more conservative states with Senators who are democratic. On top of that, they are up for reelection soon so voting against what the public wants in their states will cause them to not be reelected.

3. The White House/President plays a role in the confirmation process by determing and setting a time for the vote. They can either delay the vote or go ahead with it if they think that Dr. Murthy can winwith enough support from the members in office.

4. The White House could either delay the appointment or attempt to let Dr. Murthy defend himself so that he could have a better chance of gaining support. If he could get the view out that he really was not a radical, then he could convince many citizens that he believes the same views as them. If nothing works, they could even talk with the Democratic leaders. And lastley, they could let Dr. Murthy withdraw if he believes that there is no chance of victory.The White House learned that their strategies for getting an appointment confirmed needed to be changed if they wanted to get Dr. Murthy the position. They also needed to evaluate the support of the party before assuming that all same party candidates will be nominated.

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.

Scooped by Kara Conway
Scoop.it!

Disney Educational Productions: The Electoral College - YouTube

All about the Electoral College. This original video from Disney Educational Productions tackles one of the most interesting elements of U.S. presidential el...
Kara Conway's insight:

1. The electoral college was put in place by the framers of the Constitution so that one group would not have all the power in choosing the new president. The Constitution did not want the government to have to much control over any aspect pertaining to power. They also did not want the president to be chosen solely on who the people liked the best because most American citizens are undereducated in the ideology of the candidates.

2. The common strategy to get the necessary 270 electoral votes is to completely win over the states that the candidate's party is already favored in then move on to those states that have a possibilty of voting for that particluar candidate. "Safe states" are states that guarentee the candidate their vote because of party alignment of the population in that state. These are states that the candidate would visit first and make sure they have their votes. "Swing states" are possible states that could cast their votes for whichever candidate the people like best. There is no preset majority party alignment.

3. When none of the candidates receive a majority of the electoral college votes, the candidate votes are then sent to the House of Representatives to determine the winner. Each House in the states are given 3 votes and the candidate with the majority of the votes after the voting ends takes the presidency.

4. The 2000 election was such a close election between Al Gore and George W. Bush that it reenergized the critique of the electoral college. Bush barely got 271 electoral votes and got the presidency. Even though he won the electoral vote, Gore was the winner of the popular election. This raised criticism about if the electoral college truly represented what the population wanted. Also, the electoral college in Florida was unsure of who their popular winner would be so there were lawsuits surrounding their recount of votes.

5. The current electoral college system does satisfy me because with how American citizens are typically undereducated about the candidate's political views, they vote based off of their party affiliation or who they think would be the best president. If the people were allowed to control the electoral college, the election would practically end up as a popular contest. With the government controlling the presidential vote, the American people would have no say in who they would want as president and they would then be unsatisfied with the decisions made by the president. This is the end would cause societal unrest and even possibly dangerous upheavals.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Kara Conway 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! | Kara'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
Kara Conway's insight:
1. Yes, the events in the past 13 years explains the change in public opinions. With 9/11, less people are trust the government to make the right decisions and more people want dramatic changes to change how life is right now. This causes more discontent with the government regulations.
2. The results of the chart does reflect the views of republicans and democrats because they show the splits between liberals and conservatives. Republicans want less government gun regulation while democrats are satisfied with the level of immigration into the US. The results are almost identical to the preferences from both groups.
3. More than likely, policy changes would possibly occur for both the democrats and the republicans. The democrats would like to have new policy on the amount of poverty and homelessness in the country and the more gun control. Republicans would likely produce policy that changed the economy, limited more immigration, and changed federal taxing methods.
4. A +/- 4% sampling error means that there are some discrepancies in the polling method that caused either some groups to be underrepresented, or there wasn't enough testing done. This makes the information that is presented less reliable. The people that could've been asked might not represent the general population but just a small group.
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.