Blog Post 2.1 - "The Revolving Door"

1. Senators are more likely to become lobbyists, with half of them going on to that profession and only a third of representatives. 
2. The lobbying industry was simply not as big then, with most of the growth in lobbying occurring during the 1990s.
3. The research only documents the number of registered lobbyists, when there is a significant number of former congressmen that do not register but still do work that is incredibly similar to lobbying. There is probably twice as much lobbying going on than reported. Also, data before 1995, registration rules were a lot looser so there were likely more than reported as well. 
4. Former chairmen probably have more connections than other, regular congressmen. More connections means better lobbyists, since their major function is access. Chairmen also have better senses of what needs to be done to affect policy, since they have experience in directing policy. 
5. The author is not convinced that registration requirements are very effective, since he says that former congressmen will always find ways to lobby without officially registering. He also says that the problem is really where they are lobbying. 
6. For every $1 spent by public interest groups and lobbies combined, corporations spend $34. 
7. Former congressmen are much more likely to lobby for corporations instead of public interest groups. This is because they charge dearly for their services, and only corporations are really able to pay these high rates. 

Blog Post 1.7 - "Does Campaigning Work?"

1. All types of outreach, including door to door canvassing, phone banking, direct mail, and even advertising has no effect on voters' choice of candidate in a general election. No one targeted is persuaded, unless these tactics are used in primary elections and ballot-initiative campaigns. Campaigns can turn out voters who already made up their mind and voters can change their minds when prompted by politicians they like. 
2. A 2015 primary, a special election that year, and the 2016 election. 
3. Actions that happen within two months of the election had an effect of basically zero (-1.9%). 
4. Actions close to elections do not change peoples' minds, but actions taken further away from the election had a real chance of changing someone's opinion, but the effect will likely be gone by election day. 
5. Campaign activities are likely to have an effect in primary and special elections, but not in general elections. 
6. Boosting turnout, primary election, and perhaps special election persuasion is possible.
7. Groups would probably do better by boosting turnout at the end of an election rather than persuading people early on. Campaign funders may also want to donate more to primary elections and ballot initiatives. 
8. The 2008 US Senate race in Oregon was between Gordon Smith, a pro-life, pro-LGBT (for a Republican at the time), moderate, and Jeff Merkley, who was pro-choice. Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon worked together to educate pro-choice voters on Smith's actual views regarding abortion, as it was a common misconception that Smith was pro-choice. Canvassers also left flyers attacking North Carolina governor Pat McCrory on his position on the "bathroom bill." Since they targeted black voters in particular, the campaign was successful. 
9. Voter registration efforts are costly, about $60 per vote, far more expensive than turnout efforts.
10. Persuasion nets two votes by both adding one to your side and subtracting one from your opponent's side, whereas finding new voters just adds one vote.