3.8 When I Switch Lanes, Phantom Doors Swing Arm Out the Window Screaming Money Ain't a Thang

1. Compare the voter turnout of the 2008 and 2016 Nevada Caucus.

2. Which kinds of voters was Sanders counting on that failed to show up at the caucus?

3. How is turnout different between the Republican and Democratic primaries?

4. In what ways does Bernie Sanders say that his presidency would be better than Obama's?

5. What is the main way that Jeb!'s departure from the race changes the Republican nomination?

6. Why were the results in South Carolina particularly bad news for Ted Cruz?

7.  Rubio hasn't won anything. What contests is his campaign counting on?

8. Why is Kasich still hanging around?

9. What assumptions can you make about the fact that Trump & Rubio have not been attacking each other?

1. The 2016 Nevada Caucus has 2 for every 3 less voters that the 2008 Nevada Caucus had.

2. He needed more low and middle income voters to show up to support his cause.

3. Democratic primaries are seeing drops in attendance, where as republican primaries are setting records for attendance.

4. He claims that he can keep the energy he has now and focus it on the topics that he wants to reform. He, as soon as he became president, would start fighting corporate interests in congressional and state elections.

5. Marco Rubio has more channels of support, so now he has a much better chance of being able to compete with Trump.

6. Cruz should have won, since the demographic is southern, conservative, and evangelical, which is what his voter base comes from. He now has to worry about other states that he has "locked down" cause he may not really. His campaign is now gonna suffer from less hope/belief in him and more support to the Trump Bucket.

7. He is hoping to win on the primarily democratic and moderate states for his support.

8. He believes his campaign still has hope, mostly because of how well he did in New Hampshire.

9. I think they have not yet, since they want to keep their appearances somewhat good for the media and the people by not sending personal attacks. Soon enough, Trump will stop to care and do it anyway, and Rubio will fire back, so let's hope for the best.

3.7 When I Die, Throw a Couple BAD Bi$$$ES In My Casket, Woah!

1. How has Mitch McConnell's announcement of plans to prevent Obama's replacement of Scalia shifted the debate over the choice of a replacement?

2. Why does the coming election make this position even more dangerous for Republicans?

3. What predicament are conservative Senators in when deciding how to respond to an Obama appointee?

4. WHAT'S UP WITH MITCH McCONNELL'S FACE?!

5. How often have SCOTUS justices had to be replaced in election years?

6. What claim is Senator Chuck Grassley making?  What truth is in this claim?

7. What are the problems with Democratic claims that replacing a judge in an election year is normal?

8. Why was Anthony Kennedy confirmed so late in Reagan's last year as president?

9. How has party polarization changed the confirmation process?

10. What solutions does the Constitution have for gridlock over judicial nominees?

1. The Senate Republicans seem obstinate and unfair after McConnnell's biased statement in that he says he would block ANYONE that Obama nominates. This ain't gon' be good for the Republican Senate, ifyaknowwhati'msaying.

2. The Republicans face the harsh reality that this debate over Scalia stuff has only been hurting them, and they have to now very really fear the possibility of loosing the Senate. This would be even more detrimental, if they lost the presidency to a Democrat as well. 

3.If they deny Obama's appointee, they look bad for obstructing and being biased to their own beliefs not looking for the betterment of the nation or whatever). If they agree to an Obama appointee, they lose anyway, since a liberal justice, which they really, really don't want would be on the court.

4.That man can't believe what's happening. LOLS (It's okay fam, things might get better. Probably not. You a thot.)

5. They have been replaced more than a dozen times in election years.

6. He claims that there is an 80-year tradition of not approving a justice in an election year. This is not true, however, since Justice Kennedy was approved in an election year, It is true, though, that a justice seat was not vacated and replaced in an election year for 80 years.

7. In modern times, it virtually hasn't happened. A situation similar to this has not happened since a very long time ago. It as been at least 80 years since the last time something like this has happened, so it is hard for the Democrats to claim that something like approving a justice this fast is normal and happens all the time.

8. He was approved so late, since Reagan tried to appoint someone else, but the democrats in the senate rejected him. 

9. The confirmation process has become much more intricate and difficult when polarization leads to opposite parties in the presidency and senate. The two parties have to work together somewhat to get someone approved in the court, who "works" for both parties. Although this is true, the president has more influenc in the swing of the judge than the senate can.

10. There is really nothing written in. We just have to hope that the parties can agree and get someone in (of qualified standards). (We learned earlier this year at some point, however, that for the Supreme Court to operate, there must be at least six judges present. So, if a situation got really bad, where the appointed judges by the president were not approved, I guess the Supreme Court could shut down or something for a while? I could see how that could be a potential problem,)

3.6 Tell 'Em Holla At a N***a G, G, Riding On My Enemies, This My Ghetto Symphony

1. What does Senate Majority Leader McConell mean when he says ""The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,"?

2. What happened to Reagan nominee Robert Bork?

3. What statements have Democrats made in the past that are similar to those made by Republicans now?

4. What controversial issues with the Court deal with in this term?

5. What does President Ted Cruz think will happen if Obama appoints Scalia's replacement?

6. What actions have Democrats taken recently that are seen as exceeding constitutional authority that allow Republicans to justify their position now?

7. Why is it important that the Senate have the ability to check Obama's power on this issue?

1. He wants the American people to wait until the next president comes in to nominate/choose the next justice.

2. The Democratic Senate of 1987 was able to prevent him from being put on the supreme court.

3. They are arguing that the current president would nominate someone too radical, and this will ultimately throw off the balance of political ideology present on the court.

4. Abortion, Birth Control, and Voting Rights will all be big issues coming up very soon. ( I feel like gun legislature stuff will be too)

5. Cruz believes that the appointee will throw off the core ideology of Americans, and guarantee the removal of core American liberties.

6. The Democrats filibustered the approval of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

7. Since the senators are representative of the opinions of people where they come from, they help represent the ideology of the nation as well. This helps make sure that not only one person is in charge of the process, but instead different opinions of people who the nation voted for can all have a say as well.

3.5 I Thought I'd Probly Die In Prison, Expensive Taste In Women

1. Why does the number of Senators retiring and becoming lobbyists vary more than the number of House members doing so?
2. Why does  this data underestimate the number of Congressmen  who leave the legislature to become lobbyists?
3. Which Congressmen are most likely to become lobbyists?
4. Why do they typically end up being generic “lobbyists for hire” rather than lobbying for very specific causes?
5. What effect do these “revolving door lobbyists” have on policy making?
6. Describe the disparity in the amount of money involved in corporate lobbying and public interest lobbying.
7.  The author suggests that this is not an easily solvable problem.  What does he say would improve the situation?

1. It varies more since fewer senators retire each year making percentages more easily affected by small changes.

2.Since the data only shows registered lobbyists, while many preexisting lobbyists choose not to register.

3. Retiring congressmen, and congressmen who do work similar to that of the lobbyists, are more likely to become lobbyists.

4. Former members usually specialize in access, leaving "them" to sell to multiple clients.

5. It was shown that the side with more former government official lobbyist won more often than not. It was also shown that the side which had revolving door lobbyists was more likely to get earmarks, than the other side.

6. For every one dollar that public interest lobbying spends, corporate lobbying spends thirty four dollars. At least some of this is due to corporate lobbying spending money on the former, experienced members of Congress.

7. It would help if former congressmen use their connections and experience to help public interest lobbying rather than corporate lobbying (but if they did this, we all know they wouldn't make as much guap).

3.4 Cause I Smack That Base Like a Rockstar Drummer

In the final Democratic polls....

1. What is the gap between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders?

2. Why do you think that Martin O'Malley has such a large number of voters who choose him as the second best option?

3. What prediction do the authors make about "first time caucus goers"?

4. How is Hillary's lead among all voters different among older voters and women voters?

5. What is the margin of error in this poll?  So what actual numbers do the pollsters know?

1. 3% (45% Hillary 42% Sanders)

2. Most people are avid Hillary or Bernie supporters, so they would not want to give the other candidate even the secondary seal of approval, so they choose the only other candidate, whose popularity virtually didn't matter at that point.

3. They said they would support Bernie Sanders.

4. Hillary is winning voters over the age of 65 by more than a 2:1 ration, and she is winning women votes 47% to Bernie's 37%

5. margin of error: 4% / Bernie lost by 4 points, technically, and not 3%.

In the final Republican polls...

1. What is the gap between Donald Trump and both Cruz and Rubio?

2. Why does Donald Trump have such a small number of voters who choose him as the second best?

3. How were the poll results different for Trump and Cruz back in early January?

4. What prediction to the authors make about "first time caucus goers"?

5. What is the margin of error in this poll?  So what actual numbers do the pollsters know? (in this case, just worry about Cruz, Rubio, and Trump)

1. 5% and 13 % (28% Trump 23% Cruz 15% Rubio)

2. Most people who do not have Trump for a first choice would most likely not have Trump for a second choice either. Also, if someone supports one of the other candidates, they want to support someone other than the front runner as their second, so that their candidate seems better in the bigger picture.

3.Cruz was winning by 3% (Cruz had 25% and Trump had 22%)

4. Trump will win most of the first time caucus goers followed by Cruz then Rubio.

5. The margin of error is 4 %, so the three main candidates who are polling high and close, seem to be neck and neck in reality.

The actual results:

1. What did pollsters have wrong about the Democratic Caucus?

2. Which Republican were pollsters most wrong about?

3. Which, if any, candidates results were outside the range of the margin of error of the poll results?

4. Aside from the two actual winners, which candidates should consider the Iowa resutls to be "a win"?  Why is that?

5. Jeb! spent $14.9 million so far to try to win Iowa.  How much did each actual vote cost him?  

   (that's hilarious Jeb!)

1. They said Hillary would have a slight lead over Bernie, but in reality they were tied. (Also Hillary got those cheap coin toss wins with her voodoo or whatever)

2. The pollsters were most wrong about Trump, since they showed him as having a good lead, when in reality, he fell behind to second pretty easily.

3. O'Malley, Carson, Santorum, Rubio

4. Bernie, since he ended with a virtual tie, which was not expected, and in reality is a pretty big W for him. Also Rubio, I guess. He wasn't as trash as people thought he would be. But he still a garbage ahh dude.

5. $2,844 each. Man I wish I could make friends that cheap. No really. I need friends. Help- me. I am doing government homework on a friday night,