Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Politics”

How Seniors Could Lose In The Medicare Political Wars

Nearly no one in Washington is surprised that the Medicare Wars have returned.

This time, Democrats are claiming that Republicans seek to harm the well-liked government health program, which provides coverage to 64 million seniors and people with disabilities. Republicans have previously been successful in portraying Democrats as the threat to Medicare.

Why do politicians continue to use Social Security and Medicare as weapons? because voting has a proven track record of success. The party accused of endangering the sacred entitlements typically pays a price, but the people who stand to lose the most are the millions of recipients who depend on the feuding lawmakers to keep the programs financed.

Republicans have frequently said that if Democrats don’t negotiate changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, they will hold the raising of the federal debt ceiling hostage. About half of the federal budget is allocated to these three programs, together with money for the Affordable Care Act and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

President Joseph Biden’s State of the Union address featured a political bomb that had been building for several weeks. Biden pledged to veto any Republican attempts to slash Social Security or Medicare in his speech. He only threatened to veto three things that evening. Following the speech, Obama emphasized it more forcefully while traveling to Florida: “Republicans that I know all want to cut Social Security and Medicare. In that case, let me just state that I’m your nightmare if that’s your dream.”

Top Republicans have distanced themselves from the plans Biden was referring to, particularly ideas from the House Republican Study Committee and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., to make cuts or even let Medicare expire unless Congress agrees to keep it going.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized the plan again on a Kentucky radio interview on February 9, saying, “That’s not the Republican plan; that’s the Rick Scott plan.” McConnell has previously opposed the concept.

The day before Biden threatened to veto the measure, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy stated that cuts to Social Security and Medicare were not an option.

Rick Scott evidently does not comprehend what McConnell and McCarthy do: Politicians threaten significant, well-liked entitlement programs at their peril. Additionally, Republicans typically bear the electoral costs.

This goes back at least to the first midterm elections under President Ronald Reagan in 1982, when Democrats gained more than two dozen House seats by using Republican threats to cut Social Security benefits. By persuading voters that Republicans led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich wanted to privatize Medicare and Social Security in 1996, President Bill Clinton was able to win reelection.

President George W. Bush made “partially privatizing” Social Security a primary objective at the start of his second term, in 2005. That turned out to be incredibly unpopular. Democrats regained control of the House in the ensuing midterm elections for the 카지노사이트 주소 first time since they had lost it in 1994.

In 2010, Republicans flipped the script and took back control of the House by claiming that the Affordable Care Act had “Medicare cuts.” (The so-called cuts largely consisted of lower provider payments; beneficiaries received additional benefits as a result of the ACA.)

The use of the Medicare issue as a stick by Democrats likely peaked in 2012 when Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee and leader of the House Budget Committee, came under fire for his ideas to privatize Medicare. After that debate, a divisive political advertisement featuring Ryan throwing a wheelchair-bound “granny” off a cliff with the lines “Is America Beautiful without Medicare?” was made. It was funded by the liberal Agenda Project Action Fund and was widely remembered in Washington.

The truth is that Medicare’s usefulness as a political tool also thwarts attempts to work across party lines to find a solution to the program’s funding issues. When the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund came this close to going bankrupt the last two times, in the early 1980s and the late 1990s, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to save the program.

Politics can be ingrained in even the word “cut.” A Medicare “cut” for one stakeholder is a bonus for another. Beneficiaries’ premiums, which are determined by the total cost of the Medicare program, may be decreased by cutting payments to medical providers (or, more frequently, by reducing the extent of payment increases to physicians and hospitals). Raising premiums or cost sharing for beneficiaries benefits all taxpayers, who contribute to the funding of Medicare. Expanding the number of benefits offered benefits recipients as well as physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare professionals, but it costs more for taxpayers. And on it goes.

It is impossible to cover up the fact that the parties disagree on some fundamental points. Many Republicans want Medicare to change from a “defined benefit” program, in which beneficiaries are guaranteed a certain set of services and the government pays whatever it costs, to a “defined contribution” program, in which beneficiaries would receive a set amount of money to finance as much as they can and would be responsible for the remaining costs of their medical care.

Thus, seniors would be exposed to the government’s increased risk of health inflation. The taxpayer would undoubtedly benefit from it, but it would be bad for Medicare recipients as well as providers. Republicans are right that unless both sides put down their weapons, Medicare and Social Security can’t be “fixed.”

As a result, seniors would be exposed to the government’s health inflation risk. Therefore, while the taxpayer would undoubtedly benefit, both providers and Medicare beneficiaries would suffer.

Republicans are right in saying that until both sides put down their weapons and start communicating, Medicare and Social Security cannot be “fixed.” But, the chance of a truce seems to be dwindling every time a politician reveals his or her talking points on “Medicare cuts.”

Hiv Clinical Research Talk is Part of the Return of the Global Health Politics Workshop

HIV clinical research talk is part of the return of the Global Health Politics Workshop.

The phrase “the path to hell is paved with good intentions” was used by Ann Swidler, a sociology professor at the University of California-Berkeley Graduate School, to headline her lecture on serious misconceptions surrounding global health challenges.

Swidler’s talk, “Paved with Good Intentions: Global Health Policy & Dilemmas of Care in High Viral Load HIV Clinics in Malawi,” opened the Spring 2023 session of the Boston University Pardee School of Global Studies’ Global Health Politics Workshop on Monday, Jan. 30.

Despite the fact that her research is scientific in nature, Swidler said that she had no prior experience in global health. She self-identified as a “sociologist of culture” and said that because of her sociological training, she is able to “find things that other people weren’t looking for.” The biggest difference, according to her, is between what “global actors” think life is like in Africa and what it actually is there.

Swidler argued that trying to 카지노사이트 change the lives of individuals you’ve never taken the time to comprehend is morally repugnant and unwise.

Swidler claimed that her research was motivated by her curiosity regarding how institutions’ levels of efficacy differ around the world. She added that she has devoted over two decades to HIV research in sub-Saharan Africa due to her specific interest in the ineffectiveness of HIV and AIDS medicines un African settings.

According to the World Health Organization, HIV impairs the body’s defenses against infection. Untreated HIV can develop into AIDS, making the infected individual vulnerable to a variety of other serious illnesses. According to WHO estimates, there were around 990,000 HIV-positive persons living in Mali as of 2021.

Nicolette Manglos-Weber, an assistant professor of religion and society at Boston University’s School of Theology, recalled collaborating closely with Swidler on a 2006 research on HIV transmission, prevention, treatment, and attitudes among Malawians. HIV has been referred to as a disease of poverty, according to Manglos-Weber. With the proper financial and social assistance, the illness is fairly curable and treatable. Antiretroviral medication, which maintains the immune system, lowers mortality, and improves quality of life for infected people, is commonly used to treat HIV infections, according to WHO.

However, the situation is different in Malawi. In 2019, Swidler and her team researchers spent the summer attempting to discover why the nation’s clinics were not effectively treating acute cases of HIV, as she claimed. “A really beautiful analysis of what the difficulties are,” which Swidler delivered at the workshop, was the result of the research, which also included field notes, observations, and interviews.
The Global Health Politics Workshop was started by Joseph Harris, an associate professor of sociology at BU, with the intention of raising awareness of the problems facing the organization and provide a forum for researchers and practitioners to exchange ideas.

“If the solutions to global health issues aren’t put into action or considered in relation to issues in the real world, Harris said, “often, they can just sit on a shelf somewhere and collect dust.”

The Pardee School of Global Studies website states that the lectures in the series will continue throughout the spring and focus on the following issue: “How can the study of the politics of global health crises assist to improving the state of humanity and assuring a brighter future?”

Swidler’s talk, according to Harris, serves as an example of “how and why politics are vital in understanding and explaining and, eventually, addressing the world’s various issues.” Swidler also emphasized how crucial it is to devote time, money, and knowledge to global public health research.

She said that “(global health research) has greatly enhanced life expectancy, virtually eradicated polio, and reduced newborn mortality as well as virtually eliminated river blindness.” “The advancements in global public health are just amazing.”

The employment of criminal and associated laws against people who are HIV-positive is referred to as “HIV criminalisation.” In various countries around the world, it is currently illegal to transmit HIV, expose someone to HIV, or simply fail to reveal one’s HIV status. In certain regions, HIV has been added to the list of communicable diseases that are already banned, while in others, specific legislation has been enacted.

Despite being inefficient, discriminatory, and a serious obstacle to HIV prevention, treatment, and care, the number of these laws (and their use) is rising. Laws frequently ignore the fact that HIV is no longer a death sentence, that good treatment eradicates the risk of transmission (U=U), and that the likelihood of HIV transmission from a single act of exposure is incredibly low, treatment or no treatment.

Making the distinction between intentional (planned) acts and unintended acts is crucial. The majority of HIV criminalization cases around the world feature harsh penalties for “reckless” or inadvertent HIV exposure or transmission. One of the most forward-thinking nations in the world when it comes to HIV criminalization is the Netherlands, which only criminalizes purposeful HIV exposure or transmission.

Unquestionably, it is illegal to intentionally and actively transmit HIV to someone in order to harm them. Both intentional HIV transmission and medical malpractice by healthcare professionals are extremely rare occurrences. Such situations can be tried under current law, making the need for additional HIV-specific legislation unnecessary. Because of this, South Africa decided not to pass an HIV-specific law in 2001.

The HIV Justice Network’s most recent global audit revealed that there are HIV-related criminal statutes in 75 different nations. Three regions of the world, including the United States, eastern Europe/central Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, have a disproportionately high concentration of HIV-specific laws.

Since the United States became the first nation in the world to enact HIV-specific criminal statutes in 1987, there have been thousands of cases that have been documented. More than half of the states (27), albeit several, like California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and North Carolina have modernized these laws, make it a crime to have HIV.

The eastern European and central Asian region presently has the second-highest number of laws that specifically criminalize HIV as a result of the adoption of such legislation in the second half of the 1990s. With a very high number of recorded cases and some of the worst HIV criminalization laws in the world, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus stand out. In Russia, it is illegal to do anything that might expose someone else to an infection. Similar laws apply in Ukraine: you must disclose your HIV status before engaging in any activity that carries a risk of infection, and even in the absence of an HIV-positive diagnosis, “risky” behavior (such as injecting drugs) may subject you to criminal prosecution. An effective advocacy campaign in 2018 resulted in a law amendment in

Although there are significantly fewer reported cases of HIV infection there than there are infected people, the majority of HIV criminalization laws exist in the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. Women are generally the first in a relationship to learn their HIV status as a result of antenatal HIV testing, just as they are in eastern Europe and central Asia, rendering them more susceptible to legal action than men.

In other instances, women have also been charged with purposefully exposing their own or another person’s child to HIV through breastfeeding. In the middle of the 2000s, numerous nations, notably in west and central Africa, enacted very comprehensive HIV-specific legislation. Since then, a number of nations have decriminalized vertical transmission and restricted criminal liability to acts posing a sizable risk of transmission in awareness of the harm these laws cause to the battle against HIV. Due to community advocacy, the Democratic Republic of the Congo completely abolished its HIV-specific statute in 2018. Zimbabwe recently moved to remove its HIV-specific laws, and Kenya is still working to have its HIV-specific criminal statute declared unconstitutional.

Here’s Why Nebraska Doctors Opposed The New Anti-abortion Bill

Sunday is the 50th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, the now overturned decision that gave women federal abortion rights. Now, 50 years later, some Nebraska doctors oppose LB626, a bill introduced in Unicameral that would prevent abortions when heart activity is detected during the sixth week of pregnancy.

One common theme emerged from a conference held Sunday in Omaha attended by nearly 50 Nebraska physicians. Medical professionals came to say that the bill does not cover medical emergencies and nuances that occur during their work. OB-GYN Dr. Mary Kinyoun gave an example. “When a patient’s water breaks before conception, it can result in a baby that most babies don’t get,” Dr. Kinyoun said. “In addition, a pregnant woman can suffer from heart-breaking diseases. So I ask you, how far from death can we be as pregnant women are before life-saving abortion? »

Introduced in Nebraska’s 108th legislature was LB626, called the Nebraska Heartbeat Act. The bill targets doctors and their licenses if they perform an abortion at any time after six weeks, with some exceptions. “The three crimes are really rape, homosexuality, and mother rescue,” said President Joni Albrecht of Thurston. On January 11, several lawmakers joined Albrecht in favor of the bill. There is also Dr. Katrina Furth, who has a Ph.D. and neuroscience.

“The people of Nebraska are doing a great job in understanding the science that the unborn child is a human being who needs protection just like you and me,” Dr. Furth said. Opposing the bill at a conference Sunday, Nebraska doctors said reproductive health care is not black or white, highlighting the complexity of the decision.

Making it by the numbers in Nebraska. Some have pointed out how the bill could also drive away OB-GYN doctors in Nebraska, a state that already has a shortage of rural health care providers. Tyne Tyson is a medical student who says he is almost at the end of his training and ready to start his career in life. Tyson criticized the bill and the consequences doctors will face. “Why should I stay in a state that threatens to take everything away from me? All I want to do is my job. Giving my patients the care they deserve,” Tyson said.

Sunday’s meeting comes as the Nebraska Legislature will decide whether to ban abortions after six weeks. The first attempt by Sen. Albrecht did last year by two votes. Abortion is now banned after 20 weeks in Nebraska.

Future state lawsuits to restrict access to abortion will be on the U.S. Justice Department’s radar, DOJ officials said Monday as they announced the Biden administration’s role. Court decision. Roe v. Wade knockdown last year.

“It is clear that we are working hard to monitor what is happening in the state and the region, and given that many state legislators are returning to the session, we will continue to do so and monitor the law. any can be done that undermines the 카지노사이트 protection of the federal government. He was joined by Attorney General Merrick Garland to give a brief speech to reporters at a staff meeting, scheduled for the 50th anniversary of the Roe decision, which protected abortion rights across the country before the Supreme Court. -rescinded the decision in June.

Many states already have statutes of limitations and restrictions on documents that went into effect after the decision – although some have been held up in state courts and cases challenging them under state law. In the coming weeks, however, several state legislatures will meet for the first time since Dobbs’ law, and it is expected that anti-abortion lawmakers will extend the law in the process.

“Many of us fear that this decision will undermine reproductive freedom in the United States, that it will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country and that colored people will have heavy weight.. And people with a lot of money,” Garland said. “Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened.”

Morrison is Hoping for an Unexpected Result in the Election, but ‘uncommitted’ Voters Seldom Change Their Minds in the Last Week

The number of voters the Coalition is trying to attract in the last days of the campaign varies, depending on how the target voters are defined. But the historical accounts of success cited by commentators do not agree. The last political statement of the party leaders in the media presentation is to build support among the voters who are not fully involved, to make the voters “gently involved” away from others, and to make those who are not yet interested in the party.

These are the polls that voters correctly classify as “don’t know”, or perhaps “don’t say”, rather than “undecided” – a category that can affect those who have expressed a choice but not used it. hand. The media will always question the effectiveness of leadership appeals. It will be difficult to explain the evidence, based on different concepts of “conviction”. The 2004 election is a key point of reference. But the evidence of early backstabbing, which is often credited with saving John Howard that year, requires careful consideration. Polls are designed to reduce the number of “don’t know”
The poll was designed with the aim of minimizing the number of “don’t know” responses. The more “uninformed” people are, the more uncertain they are about voting intentions and the more difficult it is to decide what to do with them.

Should voters ignore them because they won’t vote or vote differently? Or find another way to find out how they can vote? Fortunately, pollsters also have ways to keep the number of unknowns low. Respondents who refused to say what they intended to vote for were often asked which party they ‘leaned on’. As a result of this step, none of the polls return a “don’t know” rate higher than 7%. King Charles III May Ban Forbid Prince Harry From His Coronation if He Criticizes Queen Camilla in His Memoir

None of the voters said that the “don’t know” part was necessary before asking the “leaning” question. But the actual ratio is higher than 7%.

The best way to minimize the “unknowns” is to not record them at all. Jim Reed, who conducts the Resolve poll for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, insists that respondents choose party or independent: there is no ‘knowing’ allowed.

But what about respondents who seem to be “decided” but not “involved”? However, after forcing respondents to choose, Resolve asked respondents, “How firm are you in your vote?”

In its latest poll, 86% of respondents were “involved”, 14% “not involved” – a number greater than the “don’t know” reported by other polls.

Pollsters have their own way of defining potential voters who are still “playing around.” They are concerned, for example, about “backsliding” voters about Labour/Albanians or Liberal/Morrison.

The leading parties think about their voters who can come from the minority or independent parties, or between Labor and Liberal. But they also hope to convince voters who would first vote for other parties or independents, to encourage them to get their preferred bipartisan vote. A Look at the Politics of Pandemic

The number of members who want to influence is different, but higher than the first “don’t know” or “no commitment” decision. Before the Liberal political speech, the prime minister estimated that the number of voters “are undecided or choose a small group of independents” at around 25%.

Over the weekend in Australia, Dennis Shanahan put that number even higher. To those who intend to vote for small groups or independents, he explains, adding those who “go public”, gathering “at least one vote in three” .

Not Enough “Indecision” to Undermine Labour’s Progress

When the proportion of “don’t know” is low and the difference between the two chosen parties is large – as it is in some polls, but not all – the probability of “don’t know” will be different. big. In theory, Labor needs 51.8% of the bipartisan vote to win.

So even if the uninitiated combine 2:1 in support of the Coalition, that will reduce the chances of Morgan’s election from six points (47-53) to four (48-52) – not enough enough to prevent a. Many users. In Newspoll, it will be reduced to six (47-53).

A “no commitment” vote gives union members more hope. But caution is required.

It is not clear that the number of “non-participating” voters is higher now than in other elections. In fact, there have been few polls since last week it was the “non-committal” voters who turned the tide. 카지노사이트

Take 2004 With a Grain of Salt

For those who care about the storm, the 2004 election is very interesting.

In the run-up to the election with about a week to go, according to the report, Howard took Labor on the wrong foot with his forestry policy; The job shot itself in the other foot when Mark Latham, a day later, came out to grab Howard’s hand and pull Howard to him.

According to Liberal campaign manager Brian Loughnane, Latham’s hand turned out more at Liberal Party headquarters than anything else during the six-week campaign, and “gathered people’s doubts and skepticism.” has about Mark Latham”.

But the support of the Coalition was not high at the end of the campaign, but in the first few weeks. He won with a majority: 24 seats. Long before last weekend, the Coalition had already won. Whether or not ‘uncommitted’ is preventing Labor from winning this time, their role in securing Howard’s victory in 2004 is more a matter of liberal history than political science.

With the Hollywood Talent Agency Endeavor, Former Pm Johnson is in Discussions

Boris Johnson is in talks to sign up a speaking firm that counts former President Obama and tennis star Serena Williams among its high-profile clients, Sky News has learned.

Boris Johnson is in talks with one of Hollywood’s most famous talent agencies for lucrative talks after running for a second term as British Prime Minister. Sky News has learned that Mr Johnson has had detailed discussions with Endeavour, a group founded by US businessman Ari Emanuel.

Sources said the former Prime Minister, who resigned in September, had discussions with several talent agencies in recent weeks, including Endeavor and the Harry Walker Agency (HWA), one of his partners. HWA is one of the world’s leading public speakers and boasts a collection of former US Presidents. Why the Rise of Nationalist Populist Leaders Rewrites International Climate Negotiations

Clinton and Obama, ex-wife Hillary Rodham Clinton, actress Whoopi Goldberg and tennis star Serena Williams, in his book.

Mr Johnson will earn millions of pounds from his speeches after his turbulent time in Downing Street. His efforts to win enough support from his fellow MPs to replace Liz Truss, his successor, ended in failure last month. 엠카지노

Film industry sources said on Tuesday that Mr Johnson could earn tens of millions of pounds from his speech and advertising if he is successful for several years. The initial cost or any debt it incurred is unknown.

A source close to him suggested that he has no plans to embark on any television projects “in the near future”, although they did admit that he intends to hold several concerts in the coming months. Advertising
Mr. Johnson has held talks with other workers and his contract with Endeavor and HWA is not guaranteed to go through, the person added.

It is understood that Whitehall rules overseen by the Advisory Council on Professional Appointments (ACOBA) mean Mr Johnson cannot sign a deal until December. A spokesman for the former prime minister declined to comment.

Read: High School Hockey Thrives in Arizona Despite a Lack of Rinks

A Look at the Politics of Pandemic

Check for infectious diseases

hy did California and Nevada mandate stay-at-home orders, but neighboring Utah and Wyoming did not? Why did the president of the United States tell Americans that COVID “will go away. stay calm. Will it go out ‘as hospitals are fully licensed and nurses and essential workers show up outside for protective equipment like face masks? Do we need to use an anti-virus to clean our messages? Can I see my neighbor if we are outside and socially distant? Where can I buy toilet paper? Should I wear a mask outside? Are we moving the part? How much time should we spend at home working while taking care of our children and online school? Do you think we should cancel our summer vacation? Is the government doing everything it can to protect me, my family, and my country? These are the questions we, like all Americans, began to ask ourselves in March 2020. As much of America’s economy and society has moved online and at home, we have seen our lives turn upside down from due to bad disease.

As political scientists, we are particularly familiar with the politics of change. And as scholars of political process and behavior – both in the United States and around the world – we pay attention to political history and how our fellow Americans react to it. Despite suggestions that it will ‘go away’, the first reports of rising case numbers, overcrowded hospitals, isolated citizens and lockdowns from China and Italy cannot be ignored.

Realizing the impossibility of the arrival of COVID-19 in the United States, we decided to use our skills to study American attitudes and behaviors. Each of us is an expert in a different policy area: emotional and external threats of terrorism and health problems, mainly in the United States (Gadarian); citizenship and democratic threats, including immigration and electoral interference, are central to Europe (Goodman); and the economic crisis and the decline of democracy, mainly in Asia (Pepinsky).

Our interest in existentialism began to flow into the same conversation. We want to know who in America shares our concerns. We want to know if the American people will come together to fight this challenge, or if, as we fear and suspect after years of research, politics will dominate America’s response. And we understand that we can give an idea of ​​emerging problems that do not come from the echo chamber of social media or the cacophony of cable news.

Developing a large-scale research project to survey Americans about their attitudes and behaviors in response to emerging health problems is no small task. Social scientists at federal universities receive funding that differs from researchers and think tanks at polling agencies and that our research plans must be approved by an ethics board. In addition, academic researchers must receive their own funding and have an agreement with the polling agency to compile the questionnaire. This research will go out in the field, that is to our respondents. We did all this in the first two weeks of March 2020. We even wrote down our expectations in terms of what we thought we could find – in particular, that we would see differences in behavior and behavior related to COVID-19 – and shared them in the public archive. In the social sciences, this is called “pre-registration” of our research and analysis and is used to increase trust and reduce bias. With support from our ethics committee and emergency funding from the National Science Foundation under a rapid response research grant, our first study of Americans began on March 20 while we ourselves continue to work from home and that our children have started studying at a distance.

In total, we polled Americans every day six times, from March 2020 (as states began to shut down, schools went virtual, and many events were canceled) to March/April 2021 (after the inauguration of the President Joe Biden and on the recovery side of COVID. vaccine). Each wave gives us a different picture of America as the epidemic waxed and waned (see figure I.1). We can also tap into other programs that attract American audiences throughout the year. Six mental health tips for Indian millennials that really work

Questions can be asked about, for example, racial justice following the killing of George Floyd (wave 3), the challenge of opening schools (wave 4), the issue of another presidential election (wave 5) and attitudes towards vaccines (wave 6). ). An intelligent reader may look at this figure and ask why we didn’t do field research on an epidemic scale. For us, the worst time is to take the attitude before the election (wave 5) and after the dedication (wave 6) to see if the change of the part and power.

At their core, our polls are similar to public opinion polls published as part of the electoral process. They are designed to be nationally representative, which means that the respondents are chosen randomly, but in a way that makes them more or less representative of all American adults. This is important: because our respondents are a representative sample of all Americans, we can use our research to find out what Americans as a whole are thinking during this pandemic. The idea that a survey sample can be representative of the larger population is the foundation of public opinion research, and we adhere to this idea 카지노사이트.

That said, our survey differs from standard polls in two notable ways. First of all, they are larger than the standard sample: we started with three thousand people who responded to the survey in March 2020, about three times as many respondents as we see in many polls. This gives us much of what statisticians call “statistical power,” the ability to distinguish between groups of Americans with great precision. Small-scale research can help us understand all Americans, but it may not be possible to determine how small groups of Americans differ, for example, how attitudes may differ by income, race, and it is religion. To examine the complexities of Americans’ policy response to COVID-19, we need to collect data on more Americans.

Second, unlike standard polling surveys, our research follows the groups over time. This is called panel analysis. Public opinion research firms usually draw a sample of, say, 1,000 Americans to vote, then when they want to do another poll, they draw a new sample of 1,000 Americans. Our plan is to contact those we interviewed in the first round each time we conduct a new survey. In this book, we call each research process a wave of research, and our respondents are the ones we ask the most often who answer our questions. Tracking the same groups in a panel survey is more expensive and time-consuming than taking a new sample for each wave, because the research company has to call the same groups back and encourage participation.

However, this strategy gives us unprecedented insight into things like the strength or variability of beliefs and the impact of conditions (for example, the number of local COVID cases) or conditions (for example , becoming unemployed) over time. In the final wave of the survey in March/April 2021 (supported by a grant from the Russell Sage Foundation), we added a so-called “excess” item in which we interviewed non-resident respondents. white outside our panel, including 450 Black, 450 Asian American and 450 Hispanic respondents. Other respondents allow us to better understand how small communities have fared during this pandemic and their experiences with vaccines.

See: Market News Today – Are We Close to the Bottom?