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,

3.3 Merci, lago, she go, wherever I go, wherever we go, we do it pronto

1. Jimmy Carter's 35,000 words/ Clinton's 9,172 words

2. 1973: Nixon

3. They both are known for their long speeches. Clinton is considered the longest speaker and Obama is second.

4. Jimmy Carter had short speeches, but he had fairly long text with his speeches, which he often sent to ?Congress.

1. The bully pulpit is widely held to impart significant advantage to presidents by equipping them with a powerful megaphone to persuade the American people and other political actors to support their positions

2. The platform is perceived to be especially potent because it is a prerogative all the president’s own, unencumbered by other branches of government. No member of Congress or Supreme Court justice can vet his prose. Leaving the power "unchecked".

3. In the past, the use has been extremely high and with great success rates, but in recent years, it is not used as much or as effectively. The American people are not as often addressed either.

4. Rather than hearing from the president directly, the American people often come to learn about his messages through the filter of journalists. The rise in punditry has coincided with heightened investigation into— and criticism of—presidential claims. Presidential statements no longer go uncontested either.

5. When presidents talk to the public on the chances they are given, they are often ignored. When they are not ignored, they are simply not listened to and the people remain unpersuaded.

3.2 Listen as the Crowd Would Sing, Now the Old King is Dead, Long Live the King

1. The position of the head of the Justice Department and the chief law enforcement officer of the United States; the principal legal officer who represents a country or a state in legal proceedings and gives legal advice to the government.

2. His executive actions may be challenged in court by some who claimed they would do so. Not getting legislation in the books also means that a President in the future who disagrees with him could unilaterally reverse Obama's actions. Also a congressional Republican also threatened to block funding for the Justice Department to stop the executive actions.

3. People can get guns if they buy them from private sellers, and through this method there is no background checks. Also the program that runs background checking does not have the resources it need to be efficient and thorough.

5. The private seller method. The program does not receive enough money to run itself efficiently. Also, the program has a loophole that says that if a case is halted, since it is not thorough whether a person should have a gun, then it is given a 3 day wait period for the fbi to get to it. If this fails to happen, the person in question can go ahead and buy a gun... We could see how this could create some problems. Also, since the system does not have enough money to run its on background checks on individuals thoroughly, it relies on other thing such as state records. If the state does not have records on an individual, this can just fly by the system as someone with no history of mental illness.

6. His executive actions would not close the loopholes, but they do take steps to tighten current restrictions on firearms and ensure that federal officials can actually enforce the law that's on the books.

7. Mostly the NRA and strong gun advocates who more times than not will be with the NRA.

8. Washington state and Oregon passed law ensuring all guns have to go through background checks, including those sold between individuals. This is a tightening on restrictions. Some Democratic states have tightened restrictions and some Republican states have loosened restrictions.

9. It would take decades for the impact to be felt.

10. To have a more immediate impact, the US would have to find a way to quickly remove the number of guns in circulation.

3.1 Pink Toes Pressed Against The Carpet. Show Your Face, and Finish What You Started.

1. They caused the main federal statute governing K-12 education to get an overhaul, as well as the federal disability insurance system. A continued dispute about federal highway funding finally got resolved, as did a long-running dispute about Medicare payments. December saw a whole bunch of tax changes featuring good news for low-wage workers and a broad set of business interests. Congress passed a law to ban microbeads in bath products to help protect the nation's fisheries.

2. Many bills passed between 2009 and 2010 since Democrats won big in the 2008 election and because the Obama White House was good at coordinating with Democratic congressional leaders on the question of what issues Democrats wanted to take up.

3. They want to get bills passed, so they have started to compromise a bit more.

4.In competing for political offices only one can win a position, but in passing policy, everyone can win if they compromise and get stuff passed. While politician expend resources and run for political policies, nothing gets done. This is bad for everyone.

5. Republicans won some tax victories that were important to them, and Democrats won some tax victories for the working class. In exchange, both sides had to let the other side push up the budget deficit, but it turned out neither side really cared that much, so both sides win.

6. Many deals were worked out in secrecy, and they were not done well at all. There was repeated failure in rewriting a No Child Left Behind policy as well, which did not help very much either.

7. The politicians work together in secrecy, so outside people and groups don't have as much influence on preventing things from moving forward or passing. The main way to keep people in the dark is by having them focus on other more important issues that are highly debated on.