Votifi

Facebook's new API change blocks new apps from accessing friend lists.

It was inevitable. Every step that Facebook has taken to increase its monetization strategy would necessarily undermine many of the ways that grassroots organizing found Facebook to be useful in the first place (and build facebook into the company that it is today). 

I doubt that Facebook would be the brand name it is today (like MySpace isn't) if it hadn't played a major role in elections and mass mobilizations around the world since 2008. 

But ePolitics is reporting that 

Facebook’s API change blocks new apps from accessing friend lists, and existing ones are grandfathered in for just a year. After the 2014 election cycle, vendors will have to find new ways to mine the social web for voter contacts. Smart ones will have already done so.

by Abigail Quackenboss

About two weeks ago, I wrote about how immigration reform might be impacted as a result of Eric Cantor’s primary loss. In case you missed the blog, here’s the link. Since then, there have been a some developments, initially sparked by Speaker John Boehner informing President Obama that House Republicans would not pass immigration reform this year. On June 30th, President Obama announced that he would instead take executive action to attempt to alleviate the ongoing border crisis. In addition, President Obama requested $3.7 billion from Congress to help with immigration courts to speed up the deportation process.

To gauge what Votifi users thought, on July 8th, we asked users about their reactions to President Obama’s vow to use executive actions to push immigration reform. Well-over half of respondents (70%) agreed that President Obama should act if Congress will not. Thirteen percent of users admitted they’re sick of the gridlock happening in D.C. There were a lot of great comments, too. (You can visit our site and read them here.) One user wrote, “Where in The United States Constitution does it say that the President of The United States can ‘Make Laws’?” while another wrote, “I was beginning to think…Americans have become so cold-hearted that they can’t (or won’t) tell the difference between an immigration issue and a REFUGEE issue.”

One of the greatest problems that the current crisis, immigration or refugee, faces is that most of the children are not coming from Mexico. If the children were from Mexico (and for argument’s sake, Canada), they could be deported without an immigration hearing. Instead, because the minors are from mostly-Central American countries, they must be granted a deportation hearing. Some estimates have placed wait times at almost two years for a hearing.

When you calculate how many children have crossed the border and been taken into custody since October, (over 52,000) it’s no wonder President Obama has asked for such a sum of money to help speed up the courts process. The Rio Grande Valley of Texas alone accounts for most of the apprehensions, with over 37,000 occurring since October.

Texas, where most of the children are crossing, isn’t equipped to handle such an influx of temporary inhabitants. Instead, the U.S Border Patrol is transporting bus-loads of immigrants to places such as Murrieta, California and Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Murrieta was in the limelight just before Independence Day when protesters blocked three buses from completing the transport to a detention facility. Murrieta’s own mayor has stated that he had concerns about the transport.

In light of the press and publicity, on July 9th, we asked Votifi users what their reactions to the protests were.

The comments were certainly interesting. Here are a few excerpts.

“Actually, what I see is hatred. I am personally embarrassed by the people who choose to show hatred over showing empathy toward people who need empathy. As a country we need to be ashamed.”

“This law [the one requiring children have a deportation hearing, we assume] was passed by President Bush…Right now there are not enough venues to [protect and turn over children within 72 hours] so they are living in jail-like cells..”

“What part of ‘ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT’ do you not understand? These people –weather [sic] they be Men, Women AND/OR Children are in the United States illegally.”

“I bet if there was a bus-load of beautiful light-skinned blondes they would be welcomed with open arms…just saying to make a point about racism and hatred.”

by Abigail Quackenboss

As the situation in Iraq gets worse, American’s view of the Iraq war is following a similar path into the doldrums.

NBC and the Wall Street Journal released a poll on June 24th that was blunt for once. The majority of Americans believe the Iraq war was not worth the time, resources, and devastation. Seventy-one percent of Americans, up from 59% in January 2013, viewed the Iraq War as a “waste.” The poll results go on to show that half of respondents believe that U.S. doesn’t have a responsibility to help the Iraqi people as ISIS begins to take hold in the region. NBC’s poll gives insight into some recent polls we’ve done here at Votifi.

In March 2013 we asked Votifi users, “Is Iraq better off today than it was before the U.S. invasion?” A year ago only a minority (21%) believed that U.S. presence had helped the Iraqi people. One user wrote in the comments, “The US does not invade countries to improve the lives of that country’s citizens. It does so to improve the lives of americans [sic],” while another user wrote, “I don’t know. Why don’t we ask the people of Iraq this question?” Maybe we will be able to someday, Votifi user.

Even more recently, on June 12th, our Daily Poll asked, “Should the U.S. help Iraq combat militants with air strikes per Iraq’s request?” While the results are below, it was interesting to read the comments from users. One user wrote, “We should never have been in in Iraq destroying their social fabric,” which prompted a second poll on June 16th.

The June 16th question read, “What do you believe is the biggest factor that led to the current unrest in Iraq?” Response rates are below. The plurality (48%) agreed that the U.S. should never have invaded Iraq. (Dick Cheney disagrees.) With the majority (52%) of Americans stating that the U.S. has “mostly failed in Iraq,” it looks like, as a nation, we will have the Iraq War on our conscience for quite some time.

But does that mean we should ignore the current turmoil in Iraq? Most Votifi users (62%) would agree that we should wait it out or eventually help, as long as there are no ground troops. President Obama has promised special-forces advisors, not ground/combat troops, to share intelligence with Iraqi forces among other tasks. Sending special-forces troops might not be the foreign policy everybody agrees with, but it’s better than nothing. According to Lamont Colucci, Politics and Government Chair at Ripon College, there are a number of myths surrounding our foreign policy in Iraq but the “best of myths” is “there are no good options… because it translates into inaction and hope that the problem either goes away or is overshadowed by something else.”

by Abigail Quackenboss

Immigration is typically a topic that is considered particularly polarizing. However, as Laura Meckler from the Wall Street Journal reported on June 8, 2014, immigration is not having as big of an impact upon primary races as one might suspect. While there certainly are exceptions, as Ms. Meckler cites in her article, the trend is not overly surprising.

Consider the results from a recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), a nonpartisan group, and Brookings Institution. Currently 62% of Americans “favor a way for immigrants who are currently living in the United States illegally to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements.” This can be considered a great sign of things to come for immigration reform advocates, especially considering the fact that the Senate passed an immigration reform bill last year, but is still waiting on the House to act.

Even more importantly, to tie into Ms. Meckler’s point, 53% of voters surveyed in the PRRI said they would be “less willing to vote for a candidate who opposes immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants currently living in the U.S. illegally.” Among Republican voters, respondents saw a similar trend, with 46% saying they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who opposed a reform plan with a citizenship component. Also noteworthy, 21% of Republican respondents said they would support a candidate who opposed an immigration plan with a path to citizenship, while 30% said it would not be a deciding factor in their voting behaviors.

A word of caution: as we saw with Eric Cantor’s primary loss to a Tea Party candidate on June 10, it is important for campaigns to recognize what issues are important to the constituents. Spending too much time away from the district (even if it is only 90 miles from DC) can lead to what some have called a shake-up of the GOP. In light of Cantor’s loss, many have speculated that immigration reform in the House is dead. What is important to remember is that one single man does not make or break an issue.

There is still plenty of opportunity for the Republican-majority House to tackle immigration reform once and for all. Reform may not be the most glamorous or popular topic in Congress, especially considering the number of other scandals and issues such as the Veterans Affairs probe, Bowe Bergdahl’s release by the Taliban, that have happened. However, reform is something the GOP needs to address, espeicailly if they want any chance of gaining Latino support.

Immigration is still very much on voters’ minds. In fact, back in April of this year, we asked our Votifi users, “Do you think we will see comprehensive immigration reform by the time President Obama leaves office?” The results are below. It is interesting to note that the majority of respondents thought that the midterm elections would be pivotal in the immigration reform process. By a bit of a stretch, one might speculate that voters are hopeful that the Democratic Party will gain some seats during the midterm since Democrats are viewed as more competent to handle immigration.

by Abigail Quackenboss

On Tuesday, March 18, we asked our Votifi users which of the following they believed is worse for one’s health: alcohol, tobacco, sugar, or marijuana. Want to take a guess which option received the least votes? Hint: it’s not legal for recreational use in 48 states.

We got a lot of great discussion on the question, which is absolutely fantastic. Some comments addressed the idea that marijuana “doesn’t cause enough deaths to even get noticed.” Other comments pointed to the legality of alcohol, tobacco, and sugar. Still others pointed to the deaths as an indirect result of alcohol, sugar, and tobacco.

The inspiration for this question came from a poll a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that asked the very same question. WSJ/NBC found that 49% of poll respondents said tobacco was most dangerous, followed by alcohol (24%), sugar (15%), and marijuana (8%). Part of me wonders if we had the same sample. (Don’t be throwing my daily polls, please!) <-- That’s a joke. Anyway, our results are below.

So what do we make of these results? There are a few ways to address the poll. The first stems from the comments we received in conjunction with follow-up questions by the WSJ/NBC poll. As a nation, we are very aware of the effects tobacco, alcohol, and sugar can have on our health. Tobacco and alcohol aren’t even sold without warning labels!

The second way to examine the data is that marijuana isn’t typically associated with health complications. A study published by Forensic Science International, did, however, link two deaths to marijuana. Note: These men also had underlying health issues. What we are not aware of is how heavy marijuana itself is associated with health problems. (That’s not to say there aren’t associations between marijuana use and increased risk of certain health problems.) A 20-year study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham suggested that heavy marijuana use might decrease lung function, but does not carry some of the risks tobacco does. 

Finally, and I think this is one of the biggest takeaways, marijuana might be losing its social stigma. More states are approving medicinal marijuana. Maryland’s state house delegation passed a bill last week. The Colbert Report even talked about Colorado’s “booming marijuana industry.” 

by Abigail Quackenboss

Thanks to our 189 voters on Tuesday, February 18, who responded to our daily poll that asked “Should the President authorize construction of the Keystone XL pipeline?” This was probably one of our higher response rates in the past month. In addition, there was great discussion on the page – something we love to see!

For those of you who are interested in how the cookie crumbled, here are the response percentages from the poll.

These differ quite a bit from the response that Gallup received in March 2012 when 57% of respondents polled believed that the U.S. government should approve the Keystone XL pipeline. In addition, Pew found similar results with its September 2013 poll, with 65% of respondents in favor of building the Keystone XL pipeline.

The real question is why do our results differ so much from what Gallup and Pew say are representative samples of the American population? Well, there could be a number of factors. First, and probably most likely, is that our sample is not necessarily the most representative. We had 189 respondents, which I said was a lot, but when doing public opinion polls, pollsters prefer to get numbers upwards of 1,000. An increased sample size tends to be more representative, but only to a certain extent. (Once you get too large of a sample size you are just wasting time and money.)

Another possible reason, which goes hand in hand with the first, is that our respondents tend to be a bit more liberal with their ideologies than what would be expected in a larger sample. Don’t misinterpret this as me saying ALL of our users are more left on a political spectrum. I am simply saying the nature of the beast (technology, daily use, younger users) suggests we are a bit more left.

A final explanation I would guess might have an impact on the responses is the recent release of the environmental impact statement from the State Department. Although the State Department said there would be no real impact, many individuals and organizations are still skeptical about what sort of irreversible damage we might incur through this 1,180 mile pipeline running from Canada to Texas.

by Abigail Quackenboss

Originally proposed in 2008, the Keystone XL Pipeline has been on a long and tumultuous journey to receive approval from the powers that be (the State Department and the President) to go ahead with completion. The current pipeline, known simply as the Keystone Pipeline, runs from Canada through a number of states: North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Illinois, Kansas, Oklahoma, and finally to refineries in Texas. Stretching approximately 2,150 miles, the Keystone Pipeline has the ability to carry nearly 600,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Canada to refineries in the U.S. However, the Keystone Pipeline itself is not the contentious piece of the puzzle.

Rather, there is one leg, a very long leg, of the project (the “XL” in “Keystone XL”), that has stirred a lot of debate. This proposed pipeline would run from Canada through Montana, South Dakota, and to Nebraska. According to Keystone-XL.com, the proposed leg would have a carrying capacity of over 800,000 barrels per day.

But why, if there is already a crude oil pipeline running from Canada to the U.S. are we concerned about this expansion project? Essentially, the Keystone XL pipeline has been a hot button issue since its proposal in 2008. There are a number of reasons for this. First, the number of jobs that this project will create has been disputed from the beginning. Although the project will certainly create jobs, the real question is how many. Reports vary anywhere from 35 permanent jobs (according to the State Department), to 20,000 construction jobs according to proponents of the project.

There are also concerns about the environmental impact of the pipeline. A number of environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund are concerned that the expansion project will have a negative impact on the environment. Their concerns range from water pollution across the Great Plains due to construction to the potential for leaks and soil contamination. These could lead to more problems in the long run. However, these views concerns contradict  the much-anticipated report from the State Department, released earlier this month, which can be found here, which stated there would be no significant impact on the environment if the expansion project were to be completed. Why did the State Department have to do the analysis? Because the pipeline crosses our border to Canada, this project and its environmental impact statement fell under the Department’s jurisdiction.

In addition to environmental concerns, there are safety concerns stemming from the project. It has been reported that if the U.S. continues to move crude oil by rail rather than by the proposed pipeline, we will be at risk for dangerous accidents, which could threaten the lives of many. The counter-argument (in favor of the pipeline) is that if we no longer have to move crude oil via rail, individuals will be less at risk.

 Another argument surrounding the project surrounds what will happen to the oil once it has been refined in Texas. While many supporters of the pipeline have suggested the oil will be kept here in the U.S. to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, others have suggested that it will be sold to other fossil fuel-dependent countries such as China and India. It can then be argued that if President Obama is truly committed to green energy and our oil dependency, he should again delay the project. However, the oil is not coming from the Middle East, (remember, the pipeline runs from Canada to Texas). In addition, if the Keystone XL project is not completed, it is likely that the rail to transport the oil, which Canadian oil companies have stated they will continue with if the project is not approved, will contribute more to greenhouse emissions than just the oil itself if piped to refineries.

by Abigail Quackenboss

Last month a court ruling went largely unnoticed, especially by the people whom we would expect to care most about it: internet users. What was the ruling? Net neutrality was overturned. Now, I am by no means an expert on Net neutrality. In fact, before being assigned to write this blog, I’d never heard of it. But it’s definitely a concept that has broader implications. Consider this your crash-course in Net neutrality.

What is Net neutrality?

Net neutrality was designed to keep the playing field level for all websites. It required that Internet service providers (ISPs) give all websites the same level of priority when sending information on the Web. For example, when Net neutrality was in effect, an ISP such as Verizon, Comcast, or Cox Cable could not give preferential treatment to websites that they held a stake in.

In layman’s terms, please.

Basically, now that Net neutrality is out the window, ISPs could discriminate against internet companies or internet users.  Your ISP can decide how much speed they will award each site. For example, video streaming sites such as YouTube, Hulu, or Netflix are likely to be impacted because they are bandwidth hogs.  For example, during primetime, Netflix accounts for about 32% of data being sent to users.   You might not be able to watch the next season of House of Cards at the drop of a hat. Instead, because your ISP can now throttle the bandwidth for Netflix data, your binge watching session might take a lot more than the 14 hours of actual programming.  It might seem like the days of dial-up, waiting for videos to buffer. The instantaneousness of a site may be lost. In theory this could impact more than just how much you pay for internet. It could also impact what sites you can see. Trying to view a site that doesn’t align with the mission of the ISP? Would it be a coincidence if that site loaded at a snail’s pace? Could this be a way for companies to censor content?

That sounds awful.

It really does. And the greater implications sound even worse. In order to get back to the internet speed that you enjoy, or is at least more tolerable, ISPs may require users to pay. That’s right. If you thought you were paying a lot for Internet already, ISPs could potentially offer tiered packages. Want to watch a funny cat video on YouTube? $.50 per video. Want unlimited access to your favorite shows and movies on Netflix? With the ISPs in control, they could charge whatever they want, especially if you are opting to stream from a site they don’t host. (For example, NBC has stake in Hulu. Theoretically, Comcast, which owns NBC,  can give preferential treatment to Hulu over Netflix.) And to throw another wrench into it all, have you considered how ISPs would know which sites to slow down for you personally? (Hint: They’re not the NSA, but they might be watching what you search for and do on the internet.)

So when should I expect my Internet rate to go up?

Well, here’s the sort-of bright side: ISPs have assured us that this court ruling will not impact how they provide internet service.

That’s reassuring. (Sarcasm.)

I know it’s not. Luckily, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering a number of other options to this ruling. The FCC could appeal the decision. They could also reclassify what broadband is. (Under the 2010 rules, Broadband wasn’t a tradition service provider like your telephone.) The ruling from a few weeks ago said that under the current (2010) classification, the FCC didn’t have the authority to enforce Net neutrality.  

Why are ISPs arguing against Net neutrality?

First, there is the argument that some people just use more than their share of the bandwidth to go on their Netflix binges. Shouldn’t they be charged more if they’re using more than an Internet user who is simply checking their email once a week? There’s also the argument that in order to keep up with technology to keep improving Internet speeds for sites such as YouTube and Netflix, companies have to charge more for the improvement costs. Finally, there is the argument that Net neutrality is limiting competition. If a user can get around having to pay more to watch their Netflix, they will.

Could this have any implications on the 2014 midterm elections?

Could I win the lottery? Of course it could. Will it? I’m not an expert on elections, but I going to guess this will not be the hot button issue of the year. Congress seems to have bigger fish to fry. That’s not to say they are ignoring Net neutrality completely. In fact, Democrats have introduced legislation that will temporarily bar ISPs from breaking old Net neutrality rules until the FCC is able to get it together to create their own rules or re-categorize. It’s not certain whether these bills will pass in both houses, but at least it is a glimmer of hope. 

by Abigail Quackenboss

Last week, President Obama stood before all of Congress and America to deliver his fifth State of the Union address. While there were a number of issues addressed during the 65-minute speech, there was one particular topic that was of interest to me: education.

There are many aspects to education, and as a college student the most important of which is paying for it. In 2010, President Obama signed into law the Student Loan Reform Act, which partly goes into effect this year. The bill is multi-faceted. The bill stopped giving subsidies to third party lenders, and instead the Department of Education would award loans directly. Those who begin borrowing this year will no longer have to pay back up to 15% of each monthly paycheck to their student loans. Rather, the repayment is capped at 10%. Another important piece states that new borrowers in 2014 will have their loans forgiven after 20 years, if payments are made on time. This is down from the previous forgiveness time span on 25 years.

As a college student, I understand how important this funding can be. Many of my friends in school, mostly sophomores and juniors, began taking out loans in their third semester of school. Let me reiterate that: college students are taking out loans before they have completed half their coursework necessary for graduation. In some cases, students are entirely dependent upon these loans. Their ability to repay a loan is riding on if they get a decent paying job after graduation.

That is a big if.  According to The Fiscal Times, college graduates are entering the workforce completely unprepared. As a collective group, graduates lack work ethic, critical thinking skills, and interpersonal communication skills. That’s ludicrous. I cannot fathom why students would take out tens of thousands of dollars in loans only to not properly prepare themselves for the work force. Then again, I suppose that I can only hope the work ethic I have developed from being a three-time Dean’s List student who is also involved with NCAA D3 sports and holds two jobs on campus, in addition to the critical thinking skills fostered by my college, will hold up in the real world. Unfortunately, my suspicions won’t be confirmed or refuted until I get to the “real world”.   What’s even scarier are some data recently released by The Atlantic. They said that 18.5% of Bachelor’s Degree holders were living back with their parents and in the past five years, 40% of 27-year-olds have spent some time unemployed. That means out of my 16-woman cross country team, nearly 7 of us may spend some time unemployed within five years of graduating. Yikes.

I remember in high school our teachers emphasized science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) a great deal. But according to the National Math and Science Initiative, only 36% of students graduate with a STEM major, while 62% of careers will require some knowledge of these areas. Maybe this is why there are so many unemployed or underemployed college graduates these days?

I consider myself very lucky.  I received a generous scholarship that covers most of my tuition, and much of my coursework so far has focused on communication skills and critical thinking – which I think (hope) will help me a lot after graduating.  And to be on the safe side, I have declared  a math minor, which I will complete in the fall.

My younger brother, bless his soul, does not have the knack for school that I did. He’s very smart, but lacks the interest for books and abstract concepts, much of the things a four year degree would require. But he sure is good with tools and real-world skills. In fact, if I asked him, my little brother could change the oil in my car and my tires while he was at it. That, folks, is impressive. Did I mention he is thirteen? Yet he often feels discouraged. He knows school doesn’t come easily for him, yet he doesn’t want to quit after high school. There must be a solution here.

Maybe it is time that we rethink what it means to be prepared for the workforce. Having a four-year degree isn’t a guaranteed ticket to happiness and success. There are plenty of skilled manufacturing jobs and trades that can bring equal if not more economic prosperity than getting a job with a degree. This is something President Obama realizes. On Thursday, he spoke in Wisconsin about forming partnerships between high schools and apprenticeship programs at manufacturing and trade jobs. My brother, and many other students, would be perfect candidates for these sorts of programs. In addition, President Obama signed an executive order that will evaluate all job training programs across the nation to ensure that workers are being properly trained for good, in-demand jobs. And that is something I think we can all be excited about, regardless of party. Getting people into good paying, skilled jobs will help us all in the long run.

We are headed back to SXSW this year.  For Votifi - it pretty much all started for us at SXSW in 2012. That year we had a chance to demo our product and meet with folks who have helped us a great deal to build this company.

This year one of our co-founders, Aasil Ahmad, is part of an awesome panel called "What Would Cesar Chavez Tweet". The panel will discuss some of the most effective social media strategies that have been raising the volume for grassroots movements in the Latino community.   Empowering groups through technology was one of the principles that we built Votifi on and we're excited to share our insights on technology and activism. If you are planning to be at SXSW this year please join us. The panel is open to the public (you don't need a SXSW badge) and will take place on March 7th at 3:30PM.  

by Matt Sarge

The Obama Administration recently proposed new IRS rules that could begin to reign in campaign spending by tax-exempt outside groups that expanded significantly since the Citizens United case in 2010. The current rules allow for non-profits to engage in political activity and lobbying so long as they are also “improving social welfare.” The new IRS rules would place a limit on the political spending of these non-profit groups, which would either lead to reduced political activity or registering as an explicitly political organization (such as a PAC).  

Non-profits are currently exploited as vehicles for political spending because of the anonymity they offer to donors. Political non-profits are not required to disclose donors identities, unlike Super PACs and political parties. The new rules are controversial given both the vested interest that many prominent voices have in allowing for robust campaign expenditures. Additionally, given the recent scandal surrounding IRS treatment of Tea Party affiliated groups, any IRS rule changes that can be seen as limiting political speech are likely to ignite opposition amongst conservatives. Karl Rove’s Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies is a tax-exempt group that would be highly affected by the rule changes and is currently a major financing source for Republican candidates and causes, while the League of Conservation Voters would be the largest group impacted on the Democratic side. However, the rule change to the allowed political behavior of non-profits would have a disproportionate impact of conservative groups, as nine of the ten largest political non-profits in the 2012 cycle were Republican-leaning.

Outside Spending by Type - Center for Responsive Politics

Spending by tax-exempt social welfare groups has been a major source of campaign expenditure growth, more so than unions and trade associations. Because finance rules often affect Democratic-leaning unions differently than the political non-profits that Republicans rely on, campaign finance issues can become politically charged. However, given the recent proliferation in spending by political non-profits, curbing the political activities of the 501c (4) tax exempt groups that flourished in the wake of Citizens United is an obvious attempt to limit the influence of anonymous money in politics.

by Matt Sarge

The 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, one of history’s finest and most succinct pieces of oratory, has brought the character of Abraham Lincoln to the forefront of public discourse. With time having eroded most of the controversies of his presidency, Lincoln is now viewed nearly unanimously in a positive light for having guided the nation through one of its most trying moments, and for ending one of America’s greatest enduring sins – slavery. As such a powerful and well-regarded figure, Lincoln has been claimed by both the Republicans and Democrats as being representative of their ideology.

As the first Republican President, the GOP has a partisan identity to cling to. Additionally, given the general historical trend toward more liberal (in the modern sense) ideology, most of Lincoln’s policy positions would be viewed by today’s standards as conservative or even reactionary, though at the time they may have been quite liberal or revolutionary. Lincoln’s rejection of the status quo provides Democrats a basis for the claim that Lincoln, if alive today, would be a liberal Democrat.

A recent YouGov poll  found that only twenty-three percent of Americans thought that if Lincoln were alive today he would remain a Republican, whereas thirty-two percent said he would be a Democrat. The YouGov results echo the findings of Votifi’s poll which had only eighteen percent of respondents answering that Lincoln would be a member of the Republican Party or Tea Party movement. As might be expected, a majority of both Republicans and Democrats claimed Lincoln would be a member of their party in the YouGov poll. Similarly, the political profiles of the Votifi respondents show significantly more conservative political leanings for those that claimed Lincoln as a Republican than those who argued he would be a Democrat.

Trying to objectively view which modern party Lincoln would fit in is a difficult task that requires removing oneself from the modern framing of issues. Dick Morris argues that Lincoln was not really a liberal despite the abolition of slavery that is viewed as the hallmark of his presidency. Morris claims that Lincoln’s real commitment was to entrepreneurial capitalism and the wage system. As someone who “pulled himself up by his bootstraps,” Lincoln recognized the importance of a wage system for upward mobility, and viewed slavery as a barrier to an effective wage system.

Morris argues that Lincoln’s seemingly liberal views on slavery were not rooted in views of equality but rather economic efficacy, and in fact Lincoln continued to harbor racist views. Morris’ argument is somewhat supported by the additional fact that Lincoln did not initially intend to abolish slavery but rather simply contain its westward spread until the conditions of the Civil War made abolition necessary. If Lincoln should indeed be viewed as a free-market capitalist rather than a liberal committed to equality, then perhaps the twenty-three percent are correct that Lincoln would be at home in today’s GOP.

Many have made coherent arguments that Abraham Lincoln would instead be a modern day Democrat. Greg Bailey centers his argument on the grounds that Lincoln supported using government power to invest in the public good and fighting against states’ rights arguments and xenophobic rhetoric.

“A reincarnated Lincoln would relive part of his past life listening to the states' rights arguments contemporary Republican use against any proposal to help working families. The president who levied an income tax on the wealthy would have been shocked at George W. Bush's disproportionate tax cut to the wealthiest one percent.”

In the intervening 150 years, major realignment within the two major parties has occurred resulting in a nearly exclusively liberal and exclusively conservative Democratic and Republican Party respectively. However, given the impossibility of fully understanding the motivations behind, and complexities of, Lincoln’s political ideology, it is not necessarily clear which modern party he would fall into. However, so long removed from the controversies of his presidency which left the South to single-party Democratic rule until the 1960s,

by Gene Giannotta

A couple weeks ago, the Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act by a large margin. Sixty-four senators voted for it, including a number of Republicans. But it's unlikely to make it through the House - Speaker Boehner has said he won't bring it to the floor, and even if he did, the GOP majority would seem to be a large stumbling block.

But recent research by the Williams Institute finds that majorities in every House district support the legislation, saying this "confirms that ENDA would pass if all members followed their constituents."

Over at the Monkey Cage blog, Andrew Gelman points to this as evidence that, if brought to a vote, the bill should pass in the House. He also cites an earlier piece showing that support was very strong in every state, which meant that passage in the Senate should be a sure thing, too. If senators all voted based on the overwhelming levels of public support in their states. After all, the lowest level of support was in Mississippi, and that was 63%!

Alas, Mississippi's two senators voted "nay," as did a few dozen others. So popular support among constituents, even very high levels of support, is no guarantee of votes in Congress.

Gelman, however, seems to think that high levels of public support in every district means that representatives will be hard-pressed to vote in any way other than for the bill.

Regarding primary elections: Yes, Republican Congress members have to worry about the attitudes of conservative Republican primary election voters. But that’s not the whole story, as they also try not to go counter to vast majorities of the people in their districts. To put it another way, general attitudes in the district are relevant, and with 70-80 percent support overall, I don’t think primary voters can be as opposed as all that.

Regarding the issue of intensity of support: The suggestion is that voters who oppose gay rights feel more strongly about the issue than voters who support gay rights. It is possible, but I have no particular reason to believe it—if anything, given the nature of the issue, I’d be inclined to believe the opposite, that supporters of gay rights feel more strongly about the issue than do opponents. And you’d need a huge huge difference in intensity to overcome the huge disparities in support that we see from the polls.

I especially want to highlight this: "they also try not to go counter to vast majorities of the people in their districts." That sounds reasonable, but is not the reality. After all, many senators did just that apparently. And, as the Williams Institute itself points out, "When a similar bill was considered in 2007, 183 members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted against it, even though a majority of their constituents supported the policy."

There are other examples, too. Say, gun control. Large majorities - around 90% - back universal background checks, but that has not helped legislation pass, not even in the wake of a seemingly endless string of mass shootings.

And while Gelman notes that supporters of gay rights are probably quite enthusiastic about achieving policy changes like ENDA, that's not the real question here. I doubt that even if three-quarters of a particular district supports passing ENDA, three-quarters of that district is ready to mobilize politically to encourage their representatives to vote for it. Perhaps in some cases, but all? No, one can support - even "strongly" support - a particular policy without necessarily being ready to act. And when it comes to effecting political change, what matters is not responses to surveys, but action.

These findings, while interesting and useful in helping us understand attitude trends, don't really help us understand why particular representatives might act a certain way. There is no conceivable universe in which all 435 representatives vote "aye" for passage of ENDA. The simplest explanation for why is that for many, especially Republicans, there just isn't any incentive that translates passive support (attitudes reported as favorable) into the possibility of electoral punishment should a given congressperson vote against it.

by Gene Giannotta

On November 22, 1963, Dallas was “roiling with racism and McCarthyism,” not exactly a welcoming environment for a young Democratic president who had been trying to negotiate nuclear arms treaties with the Soviets and staking progressively more liberal positions on civil rights.

There’s been some controversy over whether Dallas was really a “city of hate” responsible for Kennedy’s death fifty years ago today. Whether or not the city itself fostered an environment conducive to murdering a president, the Dallas of November 1963 certainly wasn’t a place very friendly to JFK and that was no secret to anyone at that time.

For example, here’s one poster that made the rounds as the president flew to Dallas:

When I visited the Newseum earlier this year to check out their JFK exhibit, I was struck seeing both that and this full-page ad that ran in the Dallas Morning News:

We tend to nostalgize the early 1960s in terms far more optimistic than today, but some things have not changed. The anti-government ideology of the tea party may seem to be out of sync with a country that has long relied on Social Security, Medicare, the interstate highway system, and many other examples of federal initiative. But even in Kennedy’s time and the aftermath of his assassination, there was a sizable portion of the population who saw big government as a threat.

I recently came across some Gallup trend lines for the second half of the twentieth century, and, given how we tend to generalize the era as one of pro-government opinion, I was surprised to see that even back in 1965, the high point of the Great Society and post-war liberalism, a plurality of respondents cited “big government” as “the biggest threat to the country in the future.”

Interestingly, “big business” has never really been a strong challenger for the title of “biggest threat,” save in 1965 and 1969. The spike in the mid-sixties seems to correlate with the reaction to Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society - this was a time when many social policies where passed and/or put forward by the administration in the wake of JFK’s death (civil rights legislation, Medicare and Medicaid, the War on Poverty), but which also led to a strong electoral rebuke in the 1966 midterms and, eventually, LBJ’s decision to decline a run for reelection in 1968.

So in general, rather than an aberration unique to Obama’s presidency, there’s been an increasingly prevalent view that “big government” is the “biggest threat” facing America over the past fifty years. And while today’s media environment can sometimes make it feel like the crazies are uniquely crazy today, it’s clear in the images above that this isn’t quite true either. Kennedy was as much the target of paranoid animosity as any of the men who followed him in the White House.

by Gene Giannotta

From Gallup, presidential approval for the past seven two-term presidents at comparable points in their second term:

 source: Gallup

Overall approval, according to Gallup for presidents in the 20th quarter of their administrations, stands at 46%. Obama is on par with George W. Bush and Harry Truman, slightly outpacing them. Nixon had plenty of problems to contend with after his landslide reelection, and in 1974, he would resign because of Watergate.

Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton all had approval ratings around 60% at this point in their presidencies, but none of those men had to contend with the same kind of polarized information environment that we have today.

Here’s a comparison of average approval ratings for each of the presidents since Gallup started tracking in the 1940s:

But as Gallup notes, approval often dips in the second term. They compare the averages:

Two exceptions to the rule:

Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are the only two out of seven previously re-elected post-World War II presidents who augmented their popularity over the course of their second stretch in office. Reagan and Clinton -- who had identical 50% first-term approval averages -- each entered office during a down economy and presided over muscular economic growth during their second term. As a result, their approval ratings moved upward; Reagan's average rose to 55%, while Clinton's soared to 61%.

That’s interesting given that both presidents faced serious scandals in their second terms - Iran-contra for Reagan and impeachment for Clinton.

(As an aside, I just want to note a big caveat for the Johnson numbers - LBJ's first term lasted about fourteen months and those consisted of the immediate aftermath of John F. Kennedy's assassination and the election that he would have been running for reelection in, so that 74% average is probably skewed by that.)

One wrinkle in all this is personal popularity. Those numbers above are for job approval. But the public could cut a president some slack if they think he’s done a mediocre job but like the guy personally. This is a story that’s been common for Obama’s presidency - his approval numbers have largely floated right around the middle but his personal popularity has been quite high.

That, however, seems to be changing.

But is it really? Here’s a chart from the Washington Post last month that compares the likability + approval trends:

Except for the spike in job approval with the death of Osama bin Laden, the trend lines largely correlate, albeit with his favorability ratings slightly higher. That difference is pretty small throughout his presidency but seems to be getting even smaller, to the point of dipping into net negative territory.

Here are some numbers from a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, showing a similar trend:

Rather than just include the headline number for the current polling period, I thought it’d be instructive to look at what their results have shown dating back to 2011. Over 28 polls since January of that year, Obama’s average “very positive” rating was at about 29% of respondents, while the average “very negative” rating was at 27% of respondents. The latest results show him at five percentage points worse than the average in both categories. The margin of error of the current poll is +/- 3.46%, so it’s possible the true values (the actual percent of the population that feels that way) are closer to the averages than the numbers we see here (which are estimates of that actual percent).

In other words, while these numbers certainly aren’t great for Obama and the context in which the most recent polling has been done provides some cause for concern (left a mess, the Affordable Care Act rollout has the potential to undermine his popularity by any measure), they aren’t really shocking. They seem to fit both the broader trends of presidential history and Obama’s own experience.

Another point to make about these poll trends is the role of media coverage. When attention is focused on a particular person, people obviously become more aware of them, more knowledgeable about them, and more able to make  judgments. Presidents get a good deal of visibility, period, and when a major policy has come to bear your name it’s no surprise that can make a difference. If the ACA had never been known as “Obamacare” would Obama be saddled with as much of the blame as he has? Or would his response be seen as a popularly-accepted rebuke of government contracting run amok?

It's impossible to answer those questions, but I can show how attention can help shift opinion. I’ll use two examples of potential presidential candidates and their own favorability ratings from that same NBC News/WSJ poll.

Here's Hillary Clinton, with data back to 2011:

Like Obama above, she isn't an unknown quantity - the “don’t know name/not sure” column at the far right has a range of 0-2%. She’s been in the public consciousness for two decades, so people know who she is and can make judgments accordingly. Interestingly, she’s also underperforming her averages despite having been out of the secretary of state job for most of this year. Let’s dig deeper and look at her numbers dating back to her taking office as a senator from New York in 2001:

Just from eyeballing it, what becomes obvious is that her best-performing poll trend was her tenure as secretary of state. Now that she’s mostly a topic of political discussion these days rather than a relatively quiet public servant, maybe opinion of her is defaulting to where it was before 2009. The type of coverage could matter here, and it would be interesting to look at that data to see if there’s a correlation. But for now, I just want to point out the general trends. Like Obama, she’s a well-known public figure. Movement in opinion about her, like that about the president, can be as much a function of factors that are highly-visible (i.e., “salient”) bringing more attention to her and thus “activating” existing biases, as it could be due to actual shifts.

Chris Christie's favorability ratings offer another example of how greater visibility can make a difference. Back in June 2011, Chris Christie was just over a year into his first term as governor of New Jersey. His “very positive” and “very negative” ratings were about the same as today - 10% and 7% then, 9% and 7% now. But now only about a quarter of respondents said they don’t know who he is, versus 44% two years ago. 

The difference there is 18 points. Note that the number who say they have a “somewhat positive” view of him is now 11 percentage points greater than in 2011 and the proportion that says it has a “neutral” view is now 5 points higher. In 2011, almost fifty percent of respondents didn’t know who Christie was; today, almost half of respondents have either a “neutral” or “somewhat positive” view of him. Given the generally positive press attention he’s received over that time span, that’s probably not much of a surprise.

It’s true that Obama’s personal likability, or growing lack thereof, is a story to follow. But what isn’t clear is whether it’s a worrisome trend unique to Obama or a function of two variables he has little control over: historical tendencies of declining second-term popularity and the tone of media coverage.

By Matt Sarge

The marquee races of the off-year election were Chris Christie and Terry McAuliffe’s gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia respectively, as well as Bill de Blasio’s mayoral win in New York City. Pundits compulsively spend the weeks following the election reading into the results broader conclusions about national trends and hypothesizing about voters’ rationale. In that vein, I want to take a minute to consider what the election results mean for 2014 and 2016.

De Blasio’s win in New York City, while a sharp break from Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani, should not be extended beyond the city limits. The election of a significantly more liberal mayor is actually a reversion to the mean rather than a trend in a new direction. Liberal Democrats have historically dominated the city’s elections, with the past two mayors being exceptions because of the city’s crime problem in the late 90s and an extraordinarily well-funded Bloomberg. Unlike the outcomes in New Jersey and Virginia, the New York mayoral race does not have broader implications.

Chris Christie’s landslide victory may also be less meaningful than some have argued. There is no denying that the strength of Christie’s personality has helped him win in a liberal state, but his victory came in a low turnout election and Christie had little coattails in the down-ballot races. The Republican win in the New Jersey race should be viewed as the state’s embrace of Christie, not the GOP more broadly. Christie’s deviations from the Republican Party, particularly his battles with Eric Cantor over relief funding for Hurricane Sandy, gave him further credibility with his New Jersey constituency. Maggie Haberman argues in Politico that 2016 is well suited for a Christie candidacy,  especially in comparison to a similarly situated Republican contender from past cycles, Rudy Giuliani. However, despite his seeming high with a landslide victory, polls have him significantly trailing Hilary Clinton in a potential 2016 Presidential matchup. Though still years out from 2016, Christie’s popularity in New Jersey does not currently extend to the national electorate.

In opposition to the Christie, McAuliffe’s victory was not the product of his personality, but rather somewhat in spite of it. McAuliffe was not helped by his public perception as too much of a glad-handing politician, and his ideology may be too liberal for the Virginia electorate. However, McAuliffe was able to pull of an unexpectedly-close victory in a rapidly liberalizing state. The Republican, Ken Cuccinelli, was viewed by many as being far too conservative, and suffered significantly from a lack of support from minorities and moderates. The state’s demographics are quickly changing, especially in the northern part of the state which is now a liberal bastion. Virginia is a prime example of traditionally conservative states turning ‘purple’ because of demographic changes, particularly growing Hispanic populations. The Virginia election should serve as another reminder to the RNC that particular attention needs to be paid to these demographic trends to ensure continuing GOP viability. Many have argued that McAuliffe was situated to win in a landslide had it not been for his close association with ObamaCare, which took a public opinion hit prior to the election due to its rough roll-out. While some have argued for the major impacts of the government shutdown and ObamaCare rollout on the campaigns trajectory, McAuliffe’s internal polling shows differently. The campaign showed him consistently up by a small margin, rather than suffering a big hit from the ACA implementation snafus. Once again, the election in Virginia cannot be broadly interpreted as a referendum on ObamaCare or the GOP’s role in the government shutdown given that McAuliffe’s victory margin was not significantly affected by the ACA rollout and the shutdown bump was only temporary.

by Gene Giannotta

Much has been made in the past month over the seemingly declining fortunes of the Republican Party. Polling in light of the shutdown brought little good news in terms of national favorability. Elections last week seemed to show the limits of tea party conservatism.

But reports of the Republican demise might be greatly exaggerated. We’ve been hearing such hyperbole for much of the past seven years, when a Democratic surge in 2006 captured Congress and presaged a dominant showing in 2008. The tea party wave of 2010 saw historic turnover in the House, but seemed more like a speed bump on the way to Obama’s reelection.

And then discontent over the shutdown and the victory for moderates in last week’s elections…the GOP seems in trouble heading into the midterms and then the 2016 presidential election.

But that narrative is built largely on anecdote. The numbers, as Pew’s Andrew Kohut points out, tell a much more nuanced story.

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kohut cites a recent Pew Research Center poll showing that while the GOP doesn’t have a high rating on its own, when compared with Democrats things look better. For example, “a plurality regard the Republicans as ‘better able to deal with the economy’ than the Democrats (44%-37%).” He also notes that

a growing number see the GOP as "better able to manage the government." In December 2012, the Democratic Party held a 45%-36% advantage over the GOP as the party Americans viewed as better able to manage the government. By Oct. 15—in the midst of the shutdown and debt crisis—the Democratic lead on this measure disappeared: 42% said the Republican Party is better able to manage the federal government, compared with 39% who named the Democrats.

This is a really important point to keep in mind when looking at poll numbers. As I’ve said before, we don’t vote nationally. We don’t have a parliamentary system like Britain, where voters cast their ballots for a party and that party’s platform. We vote for individuals, tied to parties, but who have their own platforms and positions that often diverge from the national party’s in order to better match their target constituents.

That’s why, as Kohut says, “tea party candidates will carry a lot of [the shutdown] baggage, but they will mostly run in districts that endorse their point of view.” So it’s unlikely that the negative image many have of the GOP will translate to national electoral trouble.

But Kohut is off when he says that “Chris Christie’s sweeping victory” across various demographics in New Jersey, a “blue state,” is evidence “of the continued viability potential of the Republican brand, its problems notwithstanding.”

That’s partially true, but only because, as I said, voters vote for individuals and not parties. Christie is a unique individual who has personal appeal independent of his party. If voters cast a ballot by party and not person, it’s conceivable results would have been much different. But these personality effects likely have more impact on election outcomes as we go down the ballot and get more local. Whether Christie has the ability to translate his particular appeal in New Jersey to the other 49 states is yet to be seen.

The other thing to keep in mind is that our choices are almost always only between Democrats and Republicans. This is a consequence of the American system, in which the candidate with the most votes wins. Third parties have difficulty gaining traction, and if they ever did, it would likely  just result in a new duopoly.

So even if voters are not too thrilled about Republicans in general, they make voting choices in the context of a competition with Democrats. And since we know that the number of truly independent voters is smaller than one might think, the choice for a particular voter is often between the candidate of their party or not voting at all.

All that is to say that while its prospects in any given election might wax and wane as a function of the tea party-moderate divide and how it plays out in a particular area, the Republican Party itself is not going anywhere.