Blog Post 2.5 - "Lisa Murkowski"

1. Lisa Murkowski from Alaska and Susan Collins from Maine.
2. She has said that "tax reform is complicated...when you add health care reform...it continues to complicate it," which seems to indicate a no vote. However, she has carefully stated that this is not a definitive position. She has also stated that she favors repealing the individual mandate, but this is also not definitive. 
3. Republicans added a rider that would allow portions of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be drilled for oil and natural gas. 
4. The proposal to begin drilling in that area has been immensely popular in Alaska, so much so that opposing it is political suicide. It could be a financial boon to Alaska as a whole. 
5. The rate of uninsured persons in Alaska fell 7.2% after the passage of Obamacare, and she doesn't want to see that reversed, especially since Republican plans were supposed to hit Alaska particularly hard. 
6. The Refuge was created in 1960, so drilling was probably not allowed for 57 years. It would have been permitted in 1980, 37 years ago, but the lack of an environmental impact study and Congressional approval means that it is still not allowed. 
7. Each Alaskan that has been in the state more than a year gets a check paid from the dividend of the earnings on the Permanent Fund, which in previous years has been around $2,200 but this year is projected to be around $1,100.
8. As an instructed delegate, Murkowski would reflect the views of her constituency. Since a significant chunk of people want to keep Obamacare, she would probably support the tax plan if a stabilization bill were passed in conjunction. If not, she would still probably vote for the plan, since not all of Alaska wants Obamacare, but all of it wants to open up the refuge to drilling. As a trustee, she would act according to her best judgment, which seems to be wavering. I'm not entirely sure how she would vote, but I would guess that she would not vote for it, since she seems to think that health care is important. Finally, as a partisan, she would vote according to her party, which means she would vote in favor of the bill.

Blog Post 2.4 - "Looking Ahead to 2018"

1. Twelve House Republicans and two Senate Republicans have announced they do not plan to run for reelection in 2018. 
2. Only two House Democrats are not running again, and zero from the Senate.
3. The only time there was a discrepancy between the parties this big was 2008, which turned out to be a major year for Democratic victories. 
4. Many Republicans fear a backlash against their party as a result of Trump's low ratings, and this fear is exacerbated by Virginia's recent Democratic wins. Others may simply not be willing to face a tough and uncertain election, or they may not want to be in the minority even though their seat is probably safe. Some say there are limits to a certain committee or subcommittee position they hold, or others may just want to retire. 
5. Safe red districts may be threatened by a potential backlash against the Republican party as a result of Trump's performance, reflected in his low approval rating. 
6. Incumbents hold a natural advantage in elections, as a result of their name recognition, history of wins reflecting a certain amount of popularity, etc., so the fact that Democrats don't have to run against a Republican with that advantage means they will face somewhat easier elections. 
7. Strong or potentially strong candidates are more likely to run in an open-seat election than against an incumbent, since they feel they have a better chance of winning. This may be the case with Jeff Van Drew, who has for years refused to run against incumbent LoBiondo. 
8. In neutral congressional years, the advantage has recently been somewhere between 3 and 7 percent. 

Blog Post 2.3 - "Media Coverage of Trump"

1. Right-leaning media outlets cited fewer types of sources, offered fewer negative and more positive evaluations of Trump and his administration, and had reporters that were less likely to challenge something the president said than left-leaning or more neutral outlets.
2. Left-leaning outlets used more types of sources and were more likely to use Trump and his administration, outside experts, or interest groups as sources. They were also more likely to include both Republican and Democratic perspectives. 
3. They were at least three times more likely to have negative coverage of Trump. 
4. Left-leaning sources refuted statements 15% of the time, whereas right-leaning ones refuted only 2%. 
5. Stories about the president's political skills, immigration, presidential appointments and nominations, U.S.-Russia relations, and health care. 
6. Most stories were structured around Trump's character and not his policy. This is probably because he is such a cartoon that focusing on his character will get more views, and there is also not that much policy to review that is reasonable enough to seriously discuss. 
7. The most common sources were Trump and his administration (74%), another news organization or journalist (35%), and Republican and Democratic members of Congress (26% and 21% respectively).
8. Studies with two or more source types were more likely to have a negative assessment. 
9. Twitter was used as a source in 16% of stories. 
10. Coverage of Trump and his administration has been much less focused on policy and much more negative than it was for previous presidents. 

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.