Blog Post 2.3 "Media Coverage of Trump"

1. Media outlets closer to Trump's position on the political spectrum cited a lower variety of  sources, were less likely to feature reporters that would challenge Trump and his administration, and reported more favorable stories about the Trump administration than negative ones.

2. Stories from left-leaning media outlets were more likely than right-leaning media to include two or more types of sources as well as sources from the opposite side of the spectrum.

3. Left-leaning outlets were 42% more likely to be critical of Trump.

4. Trump's words were refuted seven times more often by the left-leaning media than the right.

5. Most media coverage regarding the Trump administration was about  stories about the president’s political skills (17%), immigration (14%), presidential appointments and nominations (13%), U.S.-Russia relations (13%), and health care (9%).

6. Journalists were more likely to cover Trump's character, since that is what the public is interested in regardless of political leaning. Discussions of policy are too boring or technical for Americans to follow.

7. Most most frequent sources: Trump and his administration, other news outlet/journalist, members of Congress

8. Positive evaluations of Trump tended to use fewer sources.

9.  A tweet from the President was featured 16 % of the time

10. Coverage of Trump has focused on his character over policy to a greater extent than previous presidents.

Blog Post 2.5 "Lisa Murkowski"

1. Murkowski (Alaska) and Collins (Maine) have hesitated to support the bill.
2. She may be using her support for the tax bill as a bargaining chip to keep aspects of Obamacare in place, with her hints for the GOP leadership about the healthcare issue coinciding with quickly-retracted offers to vote for the tax bill.
3. A provision opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and natural gas drilling
4. She has been a longtime supporter of such a provision, and receives lots of money from oil and natural gas companies. Her constituents would also get more money if oil and natural gas profits increased, reducing the outrage over lower payments from the Permanent Fund.
5. Many of her constituents depend on Obamacare for their health insurance.
6.  Drilling has not happened since 1960, when the refuge was created. Later years have seen legal disputes delay drilling, even after 1.5 million acres were officially opened to drilling.
7. They get a check from the Alaskan sovereign wealth fund, the Permanent Fund.
8. Delegate: Murkowski votes for the tax bill to get the drilling provision and continues to fight against the complete repeal of Obamacare, since this would give Alaskans more money and healthcare, fulfilling the immediate concerns of her voters.

Trustee: Murkowski holds back from supporting anything until she gets the optimal set of conditions for herself and other Alaskans when other Republicans bend over backwards to get her vote. This way, Murkowski is deciding what she thinks is best without necessarily following what her constituents want.

Partisan: Murkowski votes for the tax bill and Obamacare repeal because that is what the GOP wants.

Blog 2.2 "Hurricanes and Agenda Control"

1. Trump's failed healthcare bill, Alabama's primary, Trump's beef with the NFL, hurricanes in Florida and Texas

2. ~10 times less

3. ~6 times.

4. CNN and the BBC devoted more time than other networks.

5. Puerto Rico is a territory, not a state

6.  Few will even know there is a problem in Puerto Rico

7. I think most Puerto Rico and Hurricane Maria have not gotten much attention because most Americans do not know what a "Puerto Rico" is. The more knowledgeable ones think it is a part of Costa Rica, and the less knowledgeable ones think it is a part of Mexico, a third world country controlled by drug cartels that spans the entirety of Central and South America. Either way, they think that Puerto Rico is a part of a foreign country. Judging from the ratings of world news broadcasts, reporting on places that appear to be foreign countries does not provide as much profit potential as the latest news about Texas handegg or Floridan alligator conservatories' basket weaving fundraising initiatives. If this is the case, then Puerto Rico has no right to more aid than Sint Maarten or Antigua and Barbuda in the minds of continental Americans.

8. Puerto Rico is thought of as a Hispanic-populated area 

9. Americans would learn a thing about geography and wonder why we have territories

10. The government wants people to agree with its policies so that it can continue to get votes and donations. If voter think the government should do something, the government will do it.

Blog Post 2.1 "The Revolving Door"

A retiring member of the Senate is more likely to become a lobbyist. Lobbying in the 1970s and 1980s was a much smaller and less well-paying industry. The revolving door also involves unregistered lobbyists, who are not represented in the data and may be responsible for up to half of the actual lobbying going on.
Committee chairmen have more connections with those in power and are more familiar with politics. They may also be more well-known and can earn more because of name recognition. The author does not believe that the registration requirements have kept former politicians from participating in lobbying and related activities, claiming that "Many former members prefer not to register, but still do work that looks very much like lobbying".
Public interest groups spend only one dollar for every $34 corporations spend, a difference of $33. Perhaps in order to get more money, politicians are more likely to become lobbyists for corporations.

Blog Post 1.7 "Does Campaigning Work?"

Campaign activities have virtually no effect on those that they attempt to reach according to Kalla and Brockman. They analyzed the 2016 and 2015 elections and reached this conclusion. They estimate that one in eight hundred was persuaded. Campaign actions that occurred some time before the election were more effective than right before elections. When voters are less set on their choice of candidate, such as during the primaries and ballot-initiative phases, campaign activities could have a greater effect.

Canvassing was effective when at least two months remained before a primary but not a general election. Therefore, Brockman and Kalla think that campaigns should try to boost voter turnout instead of trying to persuade and focus their efforts on primaries. For example, in Oregon, information about pro-choice Senate candidate Merkley was sent to pro-choice voters to correct a misconception about Merkley's views and contrast him with his opponent. The result was a three percent increase in Merkley's share of the vote. In another case, research on flyers in North Carolina indicated that flyers had a greater impact on African-American voters, so the distribution of flyers was optimized to reach the most receptive audience. 

Campaigns will often spend about sixty dollars per person they attempt to register and can be ineffective when a candidate is from a party that does not have a large number of existing party members. Persuasion can have a double effect of taking away a vote from one party and giving it to another, essentially affecting two votes instead of one.

Blog Post 1.6 "Free Speech Week"

1.The organizers of the event seem to want to provoke leftists at a center of leftism into behavior that will reveal their hypocrisy.

2. A public university should not deny a speaker or organization's request and also begin to consider logistical and scheduling concerns (unrelated to the content of a proposed speech).

3. An event organizer cannot be denied based on the content of speeches, the reason for a denial from the university has to be applicable to any organization. After rejecting a proposal, the university must provide an alternative.

4. A university may be unable to provide the preferred location, and the speaker may accuse the university of silencing an unfavorable opinion.

5. The speaking group may be responsible for the cost of security that it can afford.

6. The university/city is expected to pay.

7. The speaker cannot call for immediate law-breaking.

8. The crowd can jeer loudly enough to drown out a speaker.

9. When the police are overwhelmed by a violent crowd, they may shut down the event.

What Happened (with the voters)

Trump and Hillary were perhaps the least liked presidential candidates in US history. As a result, Stein and Johnson tripled their share of the votes. This increase in voting for minor parties sapped votes away from Clinton, whose efforts to portray Trump as an ineffective and dangerous leader failed to persuade Americans that she herself would make a good President and instead boosted votes for third-party candidates.

Trump was not quite a novel champion for whites; he received one percent less of the white vote than  Romney. Similarly to Trump with Romney, Hillary won the majority of non-white votes, but lagged behind Obama's performance in 2012. College graduates tended towards Hillary more so than Obama, perhaps due to an increase in college-educated white support.

By the end of the nomination process, both parties had chosen candidates Americans were familiar with and disliked, an unusual occurrence. However, most pundits and the media did not correctly predict which candidates would be unpopular with which groups. Non-whites that voted for Romney showed solidarity with Trump while Hillary lost some of the female support that Obama won during his election despite being a historical-first female candidate.

Blog Post 1.4 "Why People Don't Vote"

56.8% percent of Americans voted in the 2012 election, and 84% of registered voters voted. Often, Americans forget to register because of the limits on registration time. They may also be indifferent about the election until the last moment, when it is too late to register. The majority of the nonvoting electorate, however, stays indifferent about the election and candidates, unwilling to form an opinion.

Those who grow up poorer and with fewer American roots are less likely to feel that their vote will count because unfavorable circumstances make them think that no change is possible and there is no community expectation of civic responsibility.

Furthermore, America has too many elections that most voters can't keep up with. As a result, Americans may be desensitized towards democracy and carry out a streak of non-voting because of defeatist attitudes following a previous failure to vote.

The lack of choice when it comes to party affiliation may also dissuade American voters, who increasingly have unique sets of values, from being able to choose one party over the other. Parties encourage those who vote reliably (those who care about an issue on which a party takes a different stance from the other) to turn out but focus less on the rest of Americans, who may choose the other side despite the parties' efforts.

Oregon has been experimenting with mail-in votes to make voting more convenient, but some focus more on making elections more fun by having election festivals. While this may increase voter turnout, the task of evaluating candidates may devolve into selecting the most fun party to attend, and considering the increasing disability of the average American to listen to views contrary to their own, voting festivals will likely become segregated along ideological lines, furthering political polarization. These festivals would also risk simply becoming last-minute rallies for candidates, where formerly unenthusiastic voters are cajoled into uninformed decisions through alcohol and manipulative social interactions.

Of course, the United States can simply enact mandatory laws and rely on the desire in Americans to follow the law, even when enforcement is lax and there is only a minor punishment.

Blog Post 1.3 "Trump & DACA"

1. Trump has rushed to change DACA since some Republican officials have threatened to sue the federal government over it.

2. The DREAM act was similar to DACA in trying to help illegal immigrants brought into the United States as children by streamlining the citizenship process for them.

3. DACA protects DREAMers from deportation and gives them a legal work permit.

4.Arrived in US before 2007, were 15 or younger when they arrived, younger than 31 in June 2012, nearly spotless criminal record, and enrolled in high school or have a high school diploma or equivalent

5. The DREAM act was rejected, but DACA was passed in its place to offer some protection to DREAMers.

6. They cannot sign up for financial aid because they have no Social Security numbers. Knowing that they are illegal may compel some to drop out of school.

7. They lose motivation, feeling that their identity will prevent them from reaching success.

8. ?

9. DREAMers are still illegal immigrants, but their presence became lawful.

10. They found better jobs with higher incomes than non-DACA illegal immigrants.

11. They are suing for DACA to be changed.

12. No new applications for DACA will be accepted, although DACA status may be renewed for some time. As the protection expires, deportation will pose a threat to the geographical location of illegal immigrants.

13. DACA collected a lot of information about addresses and other personal information.

Blog Post 1.2 "Local Govts & Devolution"

Both the right and left wings of American politics call for different actions regarding sanctuary cities, with those being getting rid of them in the name of the law and preserving them as a protest against Trumpian policy, respectively. What the two ideological camps do seem to agree with, however, is that the federal government should decisively do something about them, such as showing tolerance, changing the law, bringing in more officials, or enforcing penalties.

Distributism is an alternative to this idea of government interference, where very local governments carry out political and economic decisions, supplemented by nationalism and a distrust for big business and empires.

More left-leaning Americans tend to feel that states' rights will interfere with progressive policies and even dispossess certain groups, while right-leaning Americans may feel that states' rights need protection. Despite this, liberals have come to see devolution in a positive light when it allows cities to have tolerant policies towards their ideals that are otherwise prohibited or obstructed by federal law. In a more universal sense, the need for minorities to fight for their own position on abortion in order to have favorable national policies has fed political polarization as people vote or abstain according to this single issue and ignore the other positions of a candidate.

The main opponent of federalism is in fact bipartisan. Both liberals and conservatives want nationwide adherence to their views, so they push issues into national consideration rather than letting states choose what to do. Democrats, for example, might fear that conservative states will cut back on social programs. However, since conservative states tend to have a high proportion of their population collecting welfare and may also have businesses that depend on existing social programs, changes will not be so drastic.

Despite this, people are in fact quite mobile and most can leave a state with unfavorable policies for a state better suited for them. When there is a place for them to go, they will end up in places where they are happier while allowing those with no objections to live in peace. This movement will lead to balance and reduce controversy. Since delegating more powers to cities would be a necessary step in delegating them to the people (and thereby creating the distributist society envisioned by Chesterton), cities must also be allowed some sovereignty.

Federalism can be painful when it means that those living near you are allowed to enforce policies that seem blasphemous or distasteful to you. For this reason, there must also be a balance between unitary and federal distributions of power in order to keep localities from engaging in miniature versions of current political warfare.

Blog Post 1.1 "Interest Groups - ACLU"

The ACLU is an organization dedicated to preserving the rights outlined in United States law. Nowadays it is a nonpartisan organization that tries to step in when it thinks something is obstructing the rights of someone in the United States. The right that the ACLU most visibly defends is freedom of speech.

The ACLU is providing legal support for the case of a white supremacist rally organizer whose protest permit was revoked. The ACLU is doing this because it appears that the speech of the rally has caused the revocation. Since there is no law explicitly prohibiting white nationalism, this may be considered an act of discrimination as well.

Because of the organizations states that it will work to keep Trump's administration within the jurisdiction of court, liberals have supported them more in recent months, perhaps believing that the ACLU would threaten Trump or allow others to do so.

Since governments are susceptible to a diverse number of ideologies, the speech that the government may want prohibited changes as well. While current local governments may oppose something that seems morally reprehensible, the ACLU believes that setting limits on speech would give later governments the ability to repress other beliefs as well. Limits on free speech can silent everyone equally. For this reason. the ACLU argued in a similar case for the National Socialist Party of America in the 1970s after the village tried to deny the party the right to march.

Some believe that allowing supremacist groups to gain media attention and parade in the streets legitimizes their beliefs, causing some to think that such viewpoints are acceptable.

The ACLU's defense of Yiannopoulos has aroused controversy for the same reasons as the white nationalists in Charlottesville. A large number of people dislike his remarks on the inequality of men and women as well as race. On this matter, however, I think the American Civil Liberties Union would be better off protecting the rights of American citizens than a temporary worker on a visa.