Blog 2.2 - "Hurricanes and Agenda Control"

1. The media has been covering a failed health care bill, a primary election in Alabama, and a dispute between Trump and some NFL players, among other topics. 
2. Hurricane Maria and Puerto Rico seem to be mentioned about 2,000 fewer times. When Puerto Rico is compared to Texas, that number climbs to about 3,000. 
3. Hurricane Maria was mentioned about half as much as Harvey and Irma. Texas was mentioned three times more than Puerto Rico, and Florida four times as much. 
4. BBC covered Hurricane Maria more than its US counterparts, and CNN covered it more than its US competitors. 
5. Many people cite Puerto Rico's territorial status as the reason for its lack of attention and delays in aid. 
6. People will not know about the hurricanes, first of all. Those that do know will not care that much, nor will they place hurricane relief efforts in Puerto Rico high on the list of things the government should do. 
7. The idea that the media does not pay attention to territories is very likely. Americans, as the article states, don't even know that Puerto Rican residents are American citizens, so they would think that Puerto Rico matters as much as American states like Texas and Florida. 
8. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists probably sees this undercoverage as a result of bias or prejudice toward Hispanics, considering that is the majority of the population of Puerto Rico. They would be sympathetic to the situation of Puerto Ricans; thus they would call for more attention to place it higher on the policy agenda. 
9. More media coverage would mean greater awareness. Greater awareness would almost certainly have led to faster relief efforts and aid delivery from the mainland United States, and it would probably also lead to greater donations directly from and for citizens. 
10. The government would not have hesitated in their delivery of aid. I imagine the amount of aid given would probably be much greater, and the insults hurled at Puerto Rican officials would have seen a lot more backlash than they did. 

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. 

Blog Post 1.6 - "Free Speech Week"

1. Conservatives might actually want to change minds, but it is more likely that they want to challenge a site that they see as intolerant of conservative viewpoints and provoke disruptions that will discredit their opposition.
2. The first reaction should be, "Sure, in principle. But we have to think about some things before we can sign off on this." Those things cannot be based on the content of the demonstration or speech.
3. Officials cannot ask people to move, reschedule, or cancel an event based on what the demonstrators are going to say. 
4. Schools have to give a "reasonable" alternative location if they deny the original request, but there is no real definition for reasonable. Demonstrators will probably think the alternative is worse, but the organization will say it is a reasonable alternative, which will create conflict. Courts can decide what is reasonable.
5. The speaking groups may have to pay for extra security fees, like police overtime pay, if they can pay them, and if the costs are figured out by the organization or city in advance fairly, meaning they don't make it too expensive to demonstrate. 
6. If the group cannot pay, then the university has to eat the costs. 
7. Officials can arrest a speaker for "inciting imminent lawless action," but not threats of violence.
8. The crowd can shout down the speaker.
9. The police can intervene if there is violence, with the first action being arresting the lawbreakers. They can only shut down the whole event if they are overwhelmed by the violence, though. If the speaker resists, the police can arrest them as well as lawbreakers. 

Blog Post 1.5 - "What Happened (With the Voters)?"

1. Neither candidate was very popular compared to past candidates. They were by far the number one and number two most disliked candidates. 
2. Jill Stein with the Green Party and Gary Johnson with the Libertarian Party both tripled their votes from 2012. This resulted in both Trump and Clinton falling short of fifty percent in more than a few states. 
3. Clinton did convince many people that Trump was unfit for the Presidency, but that did not result in more votes for her. It meant that Trump got fewer votes, but these people instead voted for third-party candidates rather than Clinton, ultimately hurting her. 
4. Romney received 59% of the white vote in 2012, whereas Trump won 58%.
5. Clinton did much worse than Obama in every nonwhite group, although she still won all of them. She dropped 5% among black men, 2% among black women, 2% among Latino men, 7% among Latino women, and 5% among all others. 
6. College graduates typically voted for Clinton at 52% versus Trump at 42%. 
7. Both parties nominated someone who was well-known but incredibly unpopular and disliked. 
8. Trump did slightly worse with white voters than Romney, and performed just as well with Latino and black voters.
9. Clinton did not broadly appeal to women voters, and she in fact did worse among noncollege white women than Obama. 

Blog Post 1.4 - "Why People Don't Vote"

1. 58.6% of Americans voted in the 2012 election, but 84% of registered voters cast a ballot.
2. A lot of times, people just forget to register until after the deadline has passed; other times, people cannot register at all because of certain registration requirements or prohibitions on people like felons. 
3. Many people say they either are not interested in voting, disliked the candidates, or did not care about voting at all. They simply do not think their vote matters. 
4. Families shape how people will view voting in the future. Affluent families tend to instill an idea that voting is expected - a responsibility - and that it can make a difference. Other people often instead get the sense that politics is dirty and that they do not matter.
5. The sheer amount of elections can fatigue voters and make it easy to slip into a habit of not voting at all. 
6. Parties tend to focus on bringing out the vote in populations that will probably support their party, and they do not focus on bringing out the vote in populations that may vote unpredictably. 
7. Oregon is allowing voting by mail to increase voter turnout. 
8. Elections that are like festivals would probably increase voter turnout and cement cultural norms around voting. 
9. Mandatory voting laws suggest to the people that voting is expected, which is normally enough without resorting to harsh punishments. 

Blog Post 1.3 - "Trump & DACA"

1. Trump was under pressure to make a decision about DACA before Monday because a group of Republicans were going to sue over its constitutionality that day.
2. DREAM was intended to benefit children who crossed into the U.S. illegally with their parents by providing them with a path to citizenship. 
3. DACA gave a temporary grant of protection from deportation and a permit to work legally. These protections last for two years, but they can be renewed. 
4. DACA recipients have to have come to the U.S. before 2007, been 15 or younger when they arrrived, and younger than 31 when DACA was created in June 2012. They also had to have a nearly spotless criminal record and either be enrolled in high school or have a high school diploma or equivalent. They also had to apply. 
5. DREAM was a moderate alternative to legalizing all 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat. 
6. Unauthorized immigrants are likely to grow up in low-income houses and cannot apply for federal financial aid. Also, an unauthorized status can dissuade people from following their educational dreams
7. Learning that one is illegal can lead to kids envisioning their lives like their parents. They do not think it is possible for an illegal immigrant to succeed, so they adjust their expectations, often leading to decreased motivation. 
8. Since these children are born in the United States, they are United States citizens - but their parents still aren't.
9. The program allowed illegal immigrants to apply for protection from deportation rather than relying on ICE agents to decline to deport these "low-priority" undocumented immigrants. Successful applicants apply for a commitment from the federal government for "deferred action," and they also get a work permit. Although it does not provide a path to becoming legal residents or citizens, they can do things like get a driver's license. 
10. DACA receivers have gone further educationally and economically than other illegal immigrants. Annual earnings increased by 80%. They were more commonly employed, and careers have been opened up, providing more opportunities than previously. 
11. States are suing to wind down DACA, claiming it is unconstitutional. 
12. People who have already applied will have their applications processed, but no new applications are accepted after Tuesday. Those currently under the program will continue to be protected until their permits and protections expire. If they expire before March 5, they will have one month to apply for one last renewal; anyone else will simply return to being unauthorized. 
13. Many DACA recipients can now be easily tracked down; others will have to leave their jobs or will no longer be able to apply for financial aid. This all makes it much easier to track down DACA recipients, who provided extensive personal records to the government for the program.