Texan Hispanics tilt Democratic, but state likely to stay red
1 view | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Jessie Doege from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"

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 | Texan Hispanics tilt Democratic, but state likely to stay red | Scoop.it
Here's how President Obama's budget would grow our economy and expand #OpportunityForAll → http://go.wh.gov/ctxpdE

Via Christine Thompson
Jessie Doege's insight:

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

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





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 Jessie Doege from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"

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

Americans' Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001 - DUE 2/24! | Texan Hispanics tilt Democratic, but state likely to stay red | 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
Jessie Doege's insight:

1. The historical events that took place within the span of said 13 year period do make a change in opinion within the American public. The events of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have caused people to be dissatisfied with issues dealing with foreign affairs, war management, and gun control

2. The results of Republican and Democratic satisfaction coincide with typical conservative and liberal viewpoints. The Democrats were satisfied with the way issues such as gay and lesbian marriage were addressed (in a liberal fashion), while Republicans were satisfied with the way gun control was being addressed

3. Since 9/11 was a direct on the country during the time span the polls were taken, I think that foreign affairs (having to especially deal with terrorism) iis a public issue that both the Democrats and Republicans want to change

4. The +/- 4 % error rate can have an effect on the weight of the answers, as in, how many people actually voted that they were satisfied or not, or the diversity and accuracy of the random sampling. It will make me more skeptical of the information displayed before me

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.

Rescooped by Jessie Doege from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"

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 | Texan Hispanics tilt Democratic, but state likely to stay red | Scoop.it

Via Christine Thompson
Jessie Doege's insight:

1. For the 2016 election, it seems that the media is looking for a  put-together, engaging, interesting candidate for both parties, but especially for the Republican party, since they haven't proven themselves as strong runners for office since George Bush.

2. Salbato focused primarily on taxes and representation of the home state and party of the candidate. They don't delve into deeper subjects such as abortion, but do mention healthcare briefly

3. The permanent presidential campaign refers to the fact that, although our president was just re-elected a year ago,  we are already hearing ideas and theories on who's running for the 2016 election. Basically,  we are constantly thinking about who's going to be the next president 

4. I believe that it would be both positive and negative  to be viewed as a leader in a presidential campaign. People will hear your name more frequently and their confidence in you will draw other people's support to come out,  but if you mess up (like the  Christie bridge incident), it will be harder to cover up because you are more well known 


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 Jessie Doege from AP Government and Politics - Assigned "Scoops"

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 | Texan Hispanics tilt Democratic, but state likely to stay red | 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
Jessie Doege's insight:

1. Democrats are hopeful for a party realignment in Texas because it would mean that more liberal policies and agendas will be addressed on a national level, along with there being more liberal power when it came to voting for the next president


2. Texas only recently became a Republican state, growing in popularity back in the early 1990's with the presidency of George H W Bush. Since then it has been one of the most Republican-leaning states in the country. However, the majority of Republican voters are non-Hispanic whites, and more and more Hispanics are living in the state. Hispanics, for the majority, vote democratic, since liberal policies benefit minorities and are all about pardoning those who have entered the country illegally. Hispanics have become a minority majority withing the state of Texas, which consequently means more "democratic" voters over "Republican"


3. The party alignment is unlikely to change, since the non-Hispanic whites who have leaned conservative are aging, especially those who were apart of the baby-boomer era. The older someone gets, the more likely they are to participate in politics, because now they have more experience and understand what they want from their government. Because of this, the state is unlikely to become democratic.


4. This gallup poll made sure to take random samples from all 50 states of the country, and made calls to 50% of people with cell phones and 50% of people with land-line. The poll made sure to account for a percentage of race and gender that was similar to the last census conducted. 

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.