4.73 score from hupso.pl for:
sheilakennedy.net



HTML Content


Titlesheila kennedy | a jaundiced look at the world we live in.

Length: 58, Words: 11
Description pusty

Length: 0, Words: 0
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title pusty
Og Meta - Description pusty
Og Meta - Site name pusty
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 6275
Text/HTML 47.34 %
Headings H1 7
H2 1
H3 6
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
sheila kennedy
birds of a feather
the parade of horribles
a ferengi approach to public safety
what now?
rejecting science
posts navigation
H2
a jaundiced look at the world we live in.
H3
menu
subscribe
categories
archives
recent comments
sites i follow
H4
H5
H6
strong
b
i
em
Bolds strong 0
b 0
i 0
em 0
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 34
Pliki CSS 8
Pliki javascript 26
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 132
Linki wewnętrzne 31
Linki zewnętrzne 101
Linki bez atrybutu Title 117
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

skip to content #content

Linki zewnętrzne

sheila kennedy

a jaundiced look at the world we live in.

http://www.sheilakennedy.net/
blog http://sheilakennedy.net/
books http://www.sheilakennedy.net/books/
about http://www.sheilakennedy.net/about/
birds of a feather http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/
http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/
public policy and governance http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/public-policy-and-governance/
delusional http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/delusional/
flynn http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/flynn/
foreign policy http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/foreign-policy/
trump http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/trump/
sheila http://www.sheilakennedy.net/author/shekenne/
new york magazine has a story titled: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/scariest-thing-about-trump-michael-flynns-team-of-nutters.html?mid=fb-share-di
believes http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-arabic-signs-on-border/
child sex trafficking http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/-michael-flynn-trump-fake-news-clinton.html
gave these frequent theories a name http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/michael-flynn-national-security-adviser-donald-trump.html
new york times http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/politics/in-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-experience-meets-a-prickly-past.html
view all 36 comments http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/#comments
the parade of horribles http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/the-parade-of-horribles/
http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/the-parade-of-horribles/
public policy and governance http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/public-policy-and-governance/
extremist http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/extremist/
hhs http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/hhs/
tom price http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/tom-price/
sheila http://www.sheilakennedy.net/author/shekenne/
my cardiologist cousin http://www.mortontavel.com/
view all 43 comments http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/the-parade-of-horribles/#comments
a ferengi approach to public safety http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/a-ferengi-approach-to-public-safety/
http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/a-ferengi-approach-to-public-safety/
public policy and governance http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/public-policy-and-governance/
house of representatives http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/house-of-representatives/
reins act http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/reins-act/
trump http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/trump/
sheila http://www.sheilakennedy.net/author/shekenne/
when she characterizes a bill as a measure to “undermine public safety,” i listen. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/suspending-the-rules-how-congress-plans-to-undermine-public-safety?mbid=nl_january%209th%202017%20(4)&cndid=46163105&spmailingid=10203591&spuserid=mty4mju1mjexntq5s0&spjobid=1080819909&spreportid=mta4mdgxotkwoqs2
noted https://medium.com/@amprog/the-reins-act-handing-the-reins-of-public-health-and-safety-over-to-big-corporations-d8f987beb726#.c1ghcpnlx
open secrets https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000186%29
desmogblog https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/01/05/koch-reins-act-congress-trump
vowed http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/12/30/s-time-rein-regulators/96001658/
view all 42 comments http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/a-ferengi-approach-to-public-safety/#comments
what now? http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/what-now-2/
http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/what-now-2/
public policy and governance http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/public-policy-and-governance/
democracy http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/democracy/
democratic institutions http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/democratic-institutions/
reform http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/reform/
sheila http://www.sheilakennedy.net/author/shekenne/
view all 40 comments http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/what-now-2/#comments
rejecting science http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/rejecting-science/
http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/rejecting-science/
public policy and governance http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/public-policy-and-governance/
robert f. kennedy http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/robert-f-kennedy/
trump http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/trump/
vaccines http://www.sheilakennedy.net/tag/vaccines/
sheila http://www.sheilakennedy.net/author/shekenne/
washington post headline https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-meet-with-proponent-of-debunked-tie-between-vaccines-and-autism/2017/01/10/4a5d03c0-d752-11e6-9f9f-5cdb4b7f8dd7_story.html?utm_term=.f47c1b919e82&wpisrc=nl_heads-draw6&wpmm=1
 article in the new yorker  http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/trumps-dangerous-support-for-conspiracies-about-autism-and-vaccines?mbid=nl_january%209th%202017%20(6)&cndid=46163105&spmailingid=10218601&spuserid=mty4mju1mjexntq5s0&spjobid=1081001010&spreportid=mta4mtawmta
he was appalled. http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20170112/what-happened-to-trumps-honeymoon-charles-krauthammer
view all 30 comments http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/rejecting-science/#comments
older posts http://www.sheilakennedy.net/page/2/
academic papers http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/academic-papers/
constitution http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/constitution/
criminal justice http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/criminal-justice/
education / youth http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/education-youth/
free speech http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/free-speech/
gay rights http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/gay-rights/
local government http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/local-government/
personal autonomy http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/personal-autonomy/
public policy and governance http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/public-policy-and-governance/
racial equality http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/racial-equality/
random blogging http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/random-blogging/
religious liberty http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/religious-liberty/
uncategorized http://www.sheilakennedy.net/category/uncategorized/
birds of a feather http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/comment-page-1/#comment-1211571
birds of a feather http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/comment-page-1/#comment-1211564
birds of a feather http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/comment-page-1/#comment-1211563
the parade of horribles http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/the-parade-of-horribles/comment-page-1/#comment-1211561
pete http://zuris.us
birds of a feather http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/comment-page-1/#comment-1211559
birds of a feather http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/comment-page-1/#comment-1211557
birds of a feather http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/comment-page-1/#comment-1211555
birds of a feather http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/comment-page-1/#comment-1211553
birds of a feather http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/comment-page-1/#comment-1211550
birds of a feather http://www.sheilakennedy.net/2017/01/birds-of-a-feather/comment-page-1/#comment-1211549
aeon https://aeon.co/
american constitution society blog http://www.acsblog.org/
balkinization http://balkin.blogspot.com/
daily kos http://www.dailykos.com/
dispatches from the culture wars http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches
five thirty eight http://fivethirtyeight.com
indiana institute for working families http://iiwf.blogspot.com/
margaret and helen http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com
masson’s blog http://www.masson.us/blog/
ogden on politics http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/
peacock panache http://www.peacock-panache.com
political animal http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
salon http://salon.com
satori stephen http://satoristephen.com
slate http://slate.com
talking points memo http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
the world's most dangerous beauty salon, inc. http://www.juanitajean.com

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 0
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 0
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 0
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

empty

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

empty

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

sheila kennedy a jaundiced look at the world we live in. menu skip to content blog books about search for: birds of a feather january 18, 2017public policy and governancedelusional, flynn, foreign policy, trumpsheila unfortunately, they’re cuckoo birds. new york magazine has a story titled: “the scariest thing about trump: michael flynn’s team of nutters.” after reading it, i understand their characterization, although i find it very difficult to single out any one of trump’s demented choices and activities as “scariest.” (i’ve been in a perpetually  terrified state since november 8.) that said, the article makes a pretty persuasive argument that flynn is certifiable. and when you consider that presidents have far more authority over foreign policy than over domestic matters, it’s pretty chilling. the opening paragraphs of the article by jonathan chait capture the threat posed by a president who lacks not only experience, but judgment, intellect and any interest in educating himself. the most frightening aspect of the looming donald trump presidency is not so much the likely outcomes, many of which are horrifying, as the unlikely ones. running the federal government of the world’s most powerful country is hard, and many things can go wrong. full control of government is about to pass into the hands of a party that, when it last had it, left the economy and the world in a shambles. these disasters occurred because the party’s ideological extremism made it unequipped to make pragmatic choices, and because its chief executive was a mental lightweight. sixteen years after it last came to power, the party has grown far more ideologically extreme, and its head of state is much less competent. many of the risks of an extremist party led by an unqualified president are difficult to foresee in advance. but one is especially glaring: the appointment of michael flynn to be national security adviser. national security adviser is a crucial position for any president. it is especially so for a uniquely inexperienced one. (donald trump being the only president in american history lacking any public experience in either a civilian or military role.) and it is all the more crucial given trump’s flamboyant lack of interest in getting up to speed (he confounded his aides by eschewing briefing books throughout the campaign, and has turned down most of his intelligence briefings since the election.) flynn’s appointment is the one that contains the sum of all fears of trumpian government. chait says that flynn exhibits the worst qualities of dick cheney, “but in exaggerated form.” like trump, flynn is a sucker for conspiracy theories. he believes, for example, that islamists have infiltrated the mexican border, guided along the way by arabic-language signs he says he’s seen. (the mexicans–and even the texans– might find that belief a bit…bizarre.) flynn also believes that democrats have imposed “sharia law” in parts of florida. he once suggested hillary clinton could have been involved in child sex trafficking. chait says that flynn’s subordinates at the defense intelligence agency gave these frequent theories a name. “flynn facts,” are code for the opposite of factual. as the article documents, flynn has surrounded himself with equally delusional staff. perhaps the scariest paragraph in the entire article is this one: compounding flynn’s susceptibility to conspiracy theories is his professed hostility to any information that undercuts his preconceived notions. according to a former subordinate speaking to the new york times, in a meeting with his staff “mr. flynn said that the first thing everyone needed to know was that he was always right. his staff would know they were right, he said, when their views melded to his.” this is the man–and the philosophy–that will guide a president trump in his dealings with the rest of the world–a man chosen largely because his delusions, self-regard and self-righteous certainty mirror the qualities of our incoming commander-in-chief. as the old saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. if the fact that these two cuckoo birds will have control of american foreign policy (not to mention the nuclear codes) doesn’t keep you up at night, you must have nerves of steel. view all 36 comments the parade of horribles january 17, 2017public policy and governanceextremist, hhs, tom pricesheila res ipsa loquitur is a legal term meaning “the thing speaks for itself.” donald trump’s personnel selections aren’t just speaking–they’re screaming. trump has chosen people for cabinet positions who are unalterably opposed to the mission of the agencies they would lead. it is difficult–okay, impossible–to imagine a more terrifying–or less competent– group of cabinet nominees. betsy devos wants to destroy public education, so trump wants her to be secretary of education. jeff sessions is a (marginally) “kinder, gentler” white supremacist, so of course trump wants him at the justice department. and my cardiologist cousin just sent me the following rundown on tom price, nominated to run health and human services (hhs). i’m not going to paraphrase it: i’m just going to share it. and then i think i’ll go throw up. ________________ this is a summary of an article appearing in the new england journal of medicine (jan 12, 2017). with regard to the department of health and human services (hhs), only two previous secretaries have been physicians. for the most part, all of us physicians work to defend not only our own patients, but society at large against dangers to health, and in the process, usually eschew venal and self oriented goals. that is why most of us chose this respected profession of care-giving in the first place. let us begin by describing the good doctors: otis bowen, our former indiana governor, was ronald reagan’s second hhs secretary, and he engineered the first major expansion of medicare, championed comparative effectiveness research and, together with surgeon general c. everett koop, another exemplary physician, led the fight against hiv-aids. louis sullivan, hhs secretary under president george h.w. bush, focused his attention on care for vulnerable populations, campaigned against tobacco use, led the development of federally sponsored clinical guidelines, and introduced president bush’s health insurance plan, which incorporated income-related tax credits and a system of risk adjustment. all these aforementioned physicians, serving in gop administrations, drew on a long tradition of physicians as advocates for the most vulnerable, were defenders of public health, and enthusiastic proponents of scientific approaches to clinical care. now comes the bad: in sharp contrast with these previous examples, tom price, trump’s pick for secretary of hhs, shows a record that demonstrates less concern for the sick, the poor, and the health of the public, in favor of greater concern for the economic well-being of the rich and the care-givers themselves. to exemplify this point, let’s enumerate his previous positions. 1. price has sponsored legislation opposing regulations on cigars and has voted against regulating tobacco as a drug, in reality, this product is actually far worse than most drugs! 2. in 2007, during the presidency of george w. bush, he was one of only 47 representatives to vote against the domenici-wellstone mental health parity and addiction equity act, which improved coverage for mental health in private insurance plans. 3. he voted against funding for combating aids, malaria, and tb, and against expansion of the state children’s health insurance program, and in favor of allowing hospitals to turn away medicaid and medicare patients seeking nonemergency care if they could not afford copayments. 4. he favors converting medicare to a premium-support system. 5. he opposed reauthorization of the violence against women act, and has voted against legislation prohibiting job discrimination against lgbt people and against enforcement of laws against anti-lgbt hate crimes. 6. he favors amending the constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. 7. he opposes stem-cell research and voted against expanding the nih budget and against the recently enacted 21st century cures act, showing particular animus toward the cancer moonshot. would he continue this stance if he developed cancer himself? 8. he is a leader of the repeal of the aca (“obamacare”) in favor of a regressive “plan” which, without going into details, will offer much greater subsidies relative to income for purchasers with high incomes and more meager subsidies for those with low incomes. in effect, price’s replacement proposal would make it much more difficult for low-income americans to afford health insurance, diverting federal tax dollars to people who can already afford it, and also substantially reducing protections for those with preexisting conditions. the end result would be a shaky market dominated by health plans that offer limited coverage and high cost-sharing. 9. strongly anti-abortion and advocating the defunding of planned parenthood, he has accepted the validity of the fraudulently modified videotapes used against this organization—despite their many pro-health programs for the poor. the hhs department oversees a broad set of health programs that touch about half of all americans. over five decades covering nine presidential tenures of both parties, hhs secretaries have used these programs to protect the most vulnerable americans. the nomination of tom price highlights a sharp contrast between this tradition of compassionate leadership and the priorities of the incoming administration. i am not at all proud of this “fellow” physician! view all 43 comments a ferengi approach to public safety january 16, 2017public policy and governancehouse of representatives, reins act, trumpsheila elizabeth kolbert is a measured, thoughtful observer of government who writes for the new yorker. so when she characterizes a bill as a measure to “undermine public safety,” i listen. a handy rule of thumb in washington is that the more pernicious the act, the more high-minded the title. thus, last week, the house of representatives approved the regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny act of 2017, also known as the reins act. the bill would strip the executive branch of the power to issue significant new rules on topics ranging from air quality to food safety. in normal times, such a power grab by congress would surely face a veto threat from the president, but, of course, these are not normal times. under the latest version of the reins act, a regulation with “an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more” could not take effect without congressional approval. in this way, either the house or the senate could easily scuttle a major new regulation—one that requires food producers to sanitize their tools, for example—simply by doing nothing. “given partisan gridlock in congress, this could result in a de facto ban on new public interest safeguards,” alison cassady, the director of domestic energy policy at the center for american progress, noted in a recent post on the bill. as kolbert points out, agencies don’t impose regulations having “an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more” overnight; such measures require considerable research and go through lengthy and multiple levels of review and public comment. of course, these are also precisely the regulations likely to be opposed by large corporations, in areas such as energy, workers’ safety, and lending practices, who often don’t like them. according to the climate-change-focussed web site desmogblog, among the reins act’s most vigorous supporters are the various lobbying organizations sponsored by the koch brothers. (during the 2016 election cycle, contributions from koch industries and its affiliates, to individual candidates and to pacs, came to more than ten million dollars, according to figures compiled by the web site open secrets.) “tellingly,” steve horn, of desmogblog, noted recently, “the only person president-elect donald trump has spoken to on the record about reins” is a conservative political activist named phil kerpen, who, for several years, served as a vice-president of the koch-funded group americans for prosperity. in an op-ed published in usa today last month, kerpen said that, in 2015, trump’s campaign provided him with a statement in which trump vowed to “sign the reins act should it reach my desk as president.” in the wake of the election, i have been binge-watching old star trek series. (it’s healthier than drinking myself into a stupor every night…) when i first read about the reins act, i couldn’t help thinking that it was something one would expect from the ferengi, an alien species that elevated pursuit of profit over every other value, and lived according to “rules of acquisition.” there is a substantial likelihood that the reins act would violate the constitutional separation of powers, but even if it fails to win senate approval, or passes and is subsequently struck down by the courts,  it is only one element of what is sure to be a wholesale assault on regulatory activity during the trump administration. trump’s cabinet choices have all evidenced a contempt for regulation entirely unconnected to the specific merits or demerits of any particular rule, and the aptly-named “lunatic caucus” of the house of representatives is enthusiastic about allowing businesses to decide for themselves how to operate–insisting that market forces are sufficient to rein in any harmful behaviors. even the ferengi know better. like the gop these days, they just don’t care….. view all 42 comments what now? january 15, 2017public policy and governancedemocracy, democratic institutions, reformsheila i’ve been asked to make a speech addressing a question that several  commenters to this blog have asked: what now? how do we rescue our democracy? here’s an abbreviated version (still long–sorry) of what i plan to say. ____________________ let me begin by admitting that i was stunned and dismayed by the election’s result. anyone who isn’t concerned about handing nuclear codes over to someone both thin-skinned and unstable hasn’t been paying attention. that said, a hillary clinton presidency would have simply been a continuation of the obama years: irrational republican opposition to anything and everything the president proposes, even when those proposals originated with republicans. it would simply have delayed the day of reckoning, and the realization of the extent to which we have lost important american democratic norms. that loss has been increasingly obvious for some time. pundits and political scientists have their pet theories for how this has happened: in american amnesia, for example, jacob hacker and paul pierson focused upon what they call a “war on government” that has accelerated since the reagan administration; in democracy for realists, christopher h. achen & larry m. bartels argued that the generally accepted theory of democratic citizenship is inconsistent with actual human nature. much of that analysis has been intriguing. none of it that i’m aware of, however, has attempted to answer the question you have asked me: what should we do and why should we do it? we don’t always appreciate the extent to which cultural or legal institutions—what we call folkways or norms—shape our understanding of the world around us.  in some cases, institutions that have worked well, or at least adequately, for a number of years simply outlive whatever original utility they may have had, made obsolete by modern communications and transportation technologies, corrupt usages, or cultural change. such obsolescence is a particularly acute element of american political life today. eight examples: the electoral college. in november, hillary clinton won the popular vote by approximately 2.85 million votes. donald trump won the electoral college because fewer than 80,000 votes translated into paper-thin victories in three states. thanks to “winner take all” election laws, trump received all of the electoral votes of those three states. “winner take all” systems, in place in most states, award all of a state’s electoral votes to the winner of that state’s popular vote, no matter how close the result; if a candidate wins a state 50.1% to 49.9% or 70% to 30%, the result is the same; votes cast for the losing candidate don’t count. the electoral college gives  outsized influence to swing states, is a disincentive to vote if you favor the minority party in a winner-take-all state, and over-represents rural and less populated states. (wyoming, our least populous state, has one-sixty-sixth of california’s population, but it has one-eighteenth of california’s electoral votes.) it advantages rural voters over urban ones, and white voters over voters of color. in 2016, hillary clinton drew her votes largely from women, minorities, and educated whites, and those voters were disproportionately urban; trump supporters were primarily (albeit not exclusively) less-educated white christian males, and they were overwhelmingly rural. akil reed amar teaches constitutional law at yale law school; he says the electoral college was a concession to the demands of southern slave states. in a direct-election system, the south would have lost every time because a huge proportion of its population — slaves — couldn’t vote. the electoral college allowed slave states to count their slaves (albeit at a discount, under the constitution’s three-fifths clause) in the electoral college apportionment. amar notes that americans pick mayors and governors by direct election, and there is no obvious reason that a system that works for those chief executives can’t also work for president. he also points out that no other country employs a similar mechanism. jamin raskin, a professor of constitutional law at american university, and a congressman representing the state of maryland, favors the national popular vote project, a nationwide interstate agreement to guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes. under the npv, all of a participating state’s electoral votes would go to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes overall. it would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states holding a majority of  electoral votes. to date, states possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it – have signed on. as raskin says: every citizen’s vote should count equally in presidential elections, as in elections for governor or mayor. but the current regime makes votes in swing states hugely valuable while rendering votes in non-competitive states virtually meaningless. this weird lottery, as we have seen, dramatically increases incentives for strategic partisan mischief and electoral corruption in states like florida and ohio. you can swing a whole election by suppressing, deterring, rejecting and disqualifying just a few thousand votes. partisan gerrymandering. after each census, states redraw state and federal district lines to reflect population changes. the party that controls the state legislature at the time controls the redistricting process, and draws districts to maximize its own electoral prospects and minimize those of the opposing party. the process became far more sophisticated and precise with the advent of computers, leading to a situation which has been aptly described as legislators choosing their voters, rather than the other way around. a 2008 book co-authored by norman orenstein and thomas mann argued that the decline in competition fostered by gerrymandering has entrenched partisan behavior and diminished incentives for compromise and bipartisanship. mann and orenstein are political scientists who have written extensively about redistricting, and about “packing” (creating districts with supermajorities of the opposing party) “cracking” (distributing members of the opposing party among several districts to ensure that they don’t have a majority in any of them) and “tacking” (expanding the boundaries of a district to include a desirable group from a neighboring district). they have shown how redistricting advantages incumbents, and shown that the reliance by house candidates upon maps drawn by state-level politicians reinforces “partisan rigidity,” the increasing nationalization of the political parties. the most pernicious effect of gerrymandering is the proliferation of safe seats. safe districts breed voter apathy and reduce political participation. what is the incentive to volunteer or vote when it obviously doesn’t matter? it isn’t only voters who lack incentives for participation, either; it is difficult for the “sure loser” party to recruit credible candidates. as a result, in many of these races, voters are left with no meaningful choice.  ironically, the anemic voter turnout that gerrymandering produces leads to handwringing about citizen apathy, usually characterized as a civic or moral deficiency. voter apathy may instead be a highly rational response to noncompetitive politics. people save their efforts for places where those efforts count, and thanks to the increasing lack of competitiveness, those places often do not include the voting booth. in safe districts, the only way to oppose an incumbent is in the primary–and that means that challenges usually come from the “flank” or extreme. when the primary is, in effect, the general election, the battle takes place among the party faithful, who also tend to be the most ideological voters. republican incumbents will be challenged by the right and democratic incumbents from the left. even where those challenges fail, they create a powerful incentive for incumbents to “toe the line”— to placate the most rigid elements of their respective parties. this system produces nominees who represent the most extreme voters on each side of the philosophical divide. the consequence of ever-more-precise state-level and congressional district gerrymandering is a growing philosophical gap between the parties and— especially but not exclusively in the republican party— an empowered, rigidly ideological base intent on punishing any deviation from orthodoxy and/or any hint of compromise. after the 2010 census, republicans dominated state governments in a significant majority of states, and they proceeded to engage in one of the most thorough, strategic and competent gerrymanders in history. the 2011 gerrymander did two things: as intended, it gave republicans control of the house of representatives; the gop held 247 seats to the democrats’ 186, a 61 vote margin– despite the fact that nationally, democratic house candidates had received over a million more votes than republican house candidates. but that gerrymander also did something unintended; it destroyed republican party discipline. it created and empowered the significant number of republican representatives who make up what has been called the “lunatic caucus” and made it virtually impossible for republicans to govern. the electoral college and gerrymandering are the “big two,” but there are other changes that would reinvigorate american democracy. the way we administer elections is ridiculous. state-level control over elections made sense when difficulties in communication and transportation translated into significant isolation of populations; today, state-level control allows for all manner of mischief, including—as we’ve recently seen– significant and effective efforts at vote suppression. there are wide variations from state to state in the hours polls are open, in provisions for early and absentee voting, and for the placement and accessibility of polling places. in states that have instituted “voter id” laws, documentation that satisfies those laws varies widely. (voter id measures are popular with the public, despite the fact that in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent, and despite clear evidence that the impetus for these laws is a desire to suppress turnout among poor and minority populations likely to vote democratic.) state-level control of voting makes it difficult to implement measures that would encourage more citizen participation, like the effort to make election day a national holiday. a uniform national system, overseen by a nonpartisan or bipartisan federal agency with the sole mission of administering fair, honest elections, would also facilitate consideration of other improvements proposed by good government organizations. campaign finance/money in politics. common cause sums it up: “american political campaigns are now financed through a system of legalized bribery.”  but big contributions  aren’t the only ways wealthier citizens influence policy. the ability to hire lobbyists, many of whom are former legislators, gives corporate interests considerable clout. money doesn’t just give big spenders the chance to express a view or support a candidate; it gives them leverage to reshape the american economy in their favor. a system that privileges the speech of wealthy citizens by allowing them to use their greater resources to amplify their message in ways that average americans cannot does great damage to notions of fundamental democratic fairness, ethical probity and civic equality. the filibuster. whatever the original purpose or former utility of the filibuster, when its use was infrequent and it required a senator to actually make a lengthy speech on the senate floor, today, the filibuster operates to require government by super-majority. it has become a weapon employed by extremists to hold the country hostage. the original idea of a filibuster was that so long as a senator kept talking, the bill in question couldn’t move forward. once those opposed to the measure felt they had made their case, or at least exhausted their argument, they would leave the floor and allow a vote. in 1917, when filibustering senators threatened president wilson’s ability to respond to a perceived military threat, the senate adopted a mechanism called cloture, allowing a super-majority vote to end a filibuster. in 1975, the senate changed several of its rules and made it much easier to filibuster. the new rules allowed other business to be conducted during the time a filibuster is theoretically taking place. senators no longer are required to take to the senate floor and argue their case. this “virtual” use, which has increased dramatically as partisan polarization has worsened, has effectively abolished the principle of majority rule: it now takes sixty votes (the number needed for cloture) to pass any legislation. this anti-democratic result isn’t just in direct conflict with the intent of the founders, it has brought normal government operation to a standstill, and allows senators to effortlessly place personal political agendas above the common good and suffer no consequence. excessive democracy isn’t as important as many of the others, but it’s not insignificant. when we go to the polls, we face choices that few of us are sufficiently informed to make. at the state level, voters choose not only governors, but secretaries of state, state auditors, superintendents of public instruction and attorneys general; at the local level, we vote for recorder, auditor, treasurer, clerk and coroner. i find it hard to believe that the average voter investigates the medical credentials of the contending coroner candidates, or the administrative skills of those running for auditor. in the real world, most voters make these choices on the basis of party affiliation. that being the case, it would make more sense to elect governors and mayors, and allow them to appoint people to most of these offices. that would improve accountability, since the executive making the appointments would be responsible for the choice of the individuals involved. when the positions are elective, chief executives can reasonably distance themselves from scandals or incompetence by pointing out that the officeholder was the choice of the voters. making many of these positions appointive would make voting simpler and faster, without doing actual damage to democratic decision-making. removing a layer of “excess” democracy is hardly as important as reforming redistricting or ensuring that the electoral college votes for the winner of the popular vote, but it would reinforce an important element of governmental legitimacy: the belief that public officials hold office as a result of a process in which informed citizens make considered democratic choices. substandard civic education. i won’t belabor this, but when significant segments of the population do not know the history, philosophy or contents of the constitution or the legal system under which they live, are ignorant of basic economic principles and don’t know the difference between science and religion, they cannot engage productively in political activities or accurately evaluate the behavior of their elected officials. the final institution that has massively failed us also doesn’t need much editorial comment from me: the current media—including talk radio, fox news, and the wild west that is the internet. the pew research center published an extensive investigation into political polarization and media habits in 2014; among their findings was that “consistent conservatives” clustered around a single news source: 47% cited fox news as their main source for news about government and politics, with no other source even close. consistent liberals listed a wider range of news outlets as main sources — no outlet was named by more than 15%. people who routinely consume sharply partisan news coverage are less likely to accept uncongenial facts even when they are accompanied by overwhelming evidence. fox news and talk radio were forerunners of the thousands of internet sites offering spin, outright propaganda and fake news. contemporary americans can choose their preferred “realities” and simply insulate themselves from information that is inconsistent with their worldviews. america is marinating in media, but we’re in danger of losing what used to be called the journalism of verification. the frantic competition for eyeballs and clicks has given us a 24/7 “news hole” that media outlets race to fill, far too often prioritizing speed over accuracy. that same competition has increased media attention to sports, celebrity gossip and opinion, and has greatly reduced coverage of government and policy. the scope and range of watchdog journalism that informs citizens about their government has dramatically declined, especially at the local level. we still have national coverage but with the exception of niche media, we have lost local news. the pathetic indianapolis star is an example. i should also point out that there is a rather obvious relationship between those low levels of civic literacy and the rise of propaganda and fake news. the fundamental democratic idea is a fair fight, a contest between candidates with competing policy proposals, with the winner authorized to implement his or her agenda. increasingly, however, those democratic norms have been replaced by bare-knuckled power plays. the refusal of the republican-led senate to “advise and consent” to a sitting president’s nominee for the supreme court was a stunning and unprecedented breach of duty that elevated political advantage over the national interest. just after the election, north carolina republicans called a special session and voted to strip the incoming democratic governor of many of the powers of that office. such behaviors are shocking and damaging deviations from american norms. these and other demonstrations of toxic partisanship have undermined trust in government and other social institutions. without that trust—without a widespread public belief in an overarching political community to which all citizens belong and in which all citizens are valued—tribalism thrives. especially in times of rapid social change, racial resentments grow. the divide between urban and rural americans widens. economic insecurity and social dysfunction grow in the absence of an adequate social safety net, adding to resentment of both government and “the other.” it is a prescription for civic unrest and national decline. if americans do not engage civically in far greater numbers than we have previously—if we do not reform our institutions, improve civic education, and support legitimate journalism—that decline will be irreversible. the good news is that there is evidence that a revival of civic engagement is underway. we the people can do this. but we have a lot of work to do if we are going to save american democracy, and there really is no time to waste. view all 40 comments rejecting science january 14, 2017public policy and governancerobert f. kennedy, trump, vaccinessheila in my law and policy classes, i discuss the influence of enlightenment philosophy, with its emphasis on empirical inquiry and scientific discovery, on those who drafted america’s founding documents. if there is any doubt that americans have left those enlightenment precepts far behind, the age of trump should dispel them. as dorothy said to toto, we aren’t in kansas anymore. luddites occupy both ends of the political spectrum. does the scientific consensus about the existence and cause of climate change threaten the bottom line of the fossil fuel companies that make significant campaign contributions? well, then, those on the right “reinterpret” the evidence to show that settled science is wrong and must be dismissed. meanwhile, the left’s suspicion of anything emanating from corporate america drives rejection of the scientific consensus that gmos are simply a newer method of making the hybrids we’ve been eating for centuries and that widespread vaccination has saved millions of lives. our incoming president, of course, has never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t love, and he certainly doesn’t seem to have much interest in the numerous, genuine problems facing america’s chief executive. so i wasn’t really surprised by the washington post headline about a meeting between trump and robert f. kennedy, jr. robert f. kennedy jr., a proponent of a widely discredited theory that vaccines cause autism, said tuesday that president-elect donald trump asked him to chair a new commission on vaccines. hours later, however, a spokeswoman for trump’s transition said that while trump would like to create a commission on autism, no final decision had been made. if trump follows through, the stunning move would push up against established science, medicine and the government’s position on the issue. it comes after trump — who has long been critical of vaccines — met at trump tower with kennedy, who has spearheaded efforts to roll back child vaccination laws. as the article points out, there is already a federal advisory committee on immunization composed of medical and public health experts — but as we have seen with his assertions that he knows more than “the generals” and his contemptuous dismissal of uncongenial information from our national intelligence agencies, trump believes he knows more than those “elitist” experts. as an article in the new yorker addressing trump’s support for the “anti-vaxxer” movement  put it, asking robert f. kennedy, jr., to chair a commission on scientific integrity is like asking ted kaczynski to run the united states postal service. in his rolling stone article, kennedy wrote that vaccines exposed infants to a hundred and eighty-seven times the daily limit of ethyl mercury, as determined by the environmental protection agency. if that were true, they would all have died immediately. rolling stone soon printed a correction—and then later corrected that correction. the actual figure was a hundred and eighty-seven micrograms, which is forty per cent higher than the levels recommended by the e.p.a. for methyl mercury (not ethyl mercury), and a tiny fraction of the figure cited in kennedy’s paper. i am no fan of charles krauthammer’s politics (to put it mildly), but he was trained as a doctor and is familiar with scientific evidence. he was appalled. in a week packed with confirmation hearings and russian hacking allegations, what was he doing meeting with robert kennedy jr., an anti-vaccine activist pushing the thoroughly discredited idea that vaccines cause autism?… kennedy says that trump asked him to chair a commission about vaccine safety. while denying that, the transition team does say that the commission idea remains open. either way, the damage is done. the anti-vaccine fanatics seek any validation. this indirect endorsement from trump is immensely harmful. vaccination has prevented more childhood suffering and death than any other measure in history. with so many issues pressing, why even go there? conspiracy theories are embraced when people lack the information needed to evaluate their credibility. civic literacy doesn’t require that citizens all be scientists–but it does require knowing the difference between a scientific theory and a wild-ass guess. it does require familiarity with the scientific method, and with the concept of falsification. i think it was neil degrasse tyson who said “science is true whether or not you believe in it.”  rejecting reality is a prescription for disaster. view all 30 comments posts navigation ← older posts articles, editorials, papers and excerpts from books written by sheila kennedy. subscribeleave blank:do not change:your email: categories academic papers constitution criminal justice education / youth free speech gay rights local government personal autonomy public policy and governance racial equality random blogging religious liberty uncategorized archives archives select month january 2017 december 2016 november 2016 october 2016 september 2016 august 2016 july 2016 june 2016 may 2016 april 2016 march 2016 february 2016 january 2016 december 2015 november 2015 october 2015 september 2015 august 2015 july 2015 june 2015 may 2015 april 2015 march 2015 february 2015 january 2015 december 2014 november 2014 october 2014 september 2014 august 2014 july 2014 june 2014 may 2014 april 2014 march 2014 february 2014 january 2014 december 2013 november 2013 october 2013 september 2013 august 2013 july 2013 june 2013 may 2013 april 2013 march 2013 february 2013 january 2013 december 2012 november 2012 october 2012 september 2012 august 2012 july 2012 june 2012 may 2012 april 2012 march 2012 february 2012 january 2012 december 2011 november 2011 october 2011 september 2011 august 2011 july 2011 june 2011 may 2011 april 2011 march 2011 february 2011 january 2011 december 2010 november 2010 october 2010 september 2010 august 2010 july 2010 june 2010 may 2010 april 2010 march 2010 february 2010 january 2010 december 2009 november 2009 october 2009 september 2009 august 2009 july 2009 june 2009 may 2009 april 2009 march 2009 february 2009 january 2009 november 2008 september 2008 august 2008 june 2008 may 2008 april 2008 february 2008 january 2008 december 2007 november 2007 october 2007 august 2007 july 2007 june 2007 may 2007 april 2007 february 2007 january 2007 december 2006 november 2006 october 2006 september 2006 august 2006 july 2006 june 2006 may 2006 april 2006 march 2006 february 2006 january 2006 december 2005 november 2005 october 2005 september 2005 august 2005 july 2005 june 2005 may 2005 april 2005 march 2005 february 2005 january 2005 december 2004 november 2004 october 2004 september 2004 august 2004 july 2004 june 2004 may 2004 march 2004 february 2004 january 2004 december 2003 november 2003 october 2003 september 2003 august 2003 july 2003 june 2003 may 2003 march 2003 february 2003 january 2003 october 2002 september 2002 august 2002 july 2002 may 2002 april 2002 february 2002 january 2002 december 2001 november 2001 september 2001 june 2001 may 2001 april 2001 march 2001 january 2001 october 2000 august 2000 july 2000 june 2000 may 2000 april 2000 january 2000 december 1999 november 1999 september 1999 july 1999 june 1999 may 1999 march 1999 january 1999 december 1998 november 1998 july 1998 june 1998 may 1998 april 1998 march 1998 january 1998 december 1997 july 1997 may 1997 march 1997 february 1997 january 1997 october 1996 september 1996 may 1996 november 1995 may 1995 may 1994 november 1993 august 1993 july 1993 may 1993 recent commentsmarge woodd on birds of a featherbradford bray on birds of a featherbsh on birds of a feathermike from iowa on the parade of horriblespete on birds of a feathertom lund on birds of a feathermarion wagner on birds of a featherjoann green on birds of a featherrobert flora on birds of a featherdaleb on birds of a feathersites i follow aeon american constitution society blog balkinization daily kos dispatches from the culture wars five thirty eight indiana institute for working families margaret and helen masson’s blog ogden on politics peacock panache political animal salon satori stephen slate talking points memo the world's most dangerous beauty salon, inc. © sheila kennedy


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 6378

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 7.48% (477)
and - 3.25% (207)
for - 1.65% (105)
that - 1.51% (96)
res - 1.4% (89)
all - 1.19% (76)
can - 1.08% (69)
vote - 0.91% (58)
over - 0.88% (56)
ted - 0.85% (54)
her - 0.83% (53)
are - 0.74% (47)
out - 0.67% (43)
his - 0.64% (41)
state - 0.64% (41)
elect - 0.63% (40)
ten - 0.61% (39)
with - 0.6% (38)
has - 0.6% (38)
act - 0.58% (37)
trump - 0.56% (36)
have - 0.55% (35)
age - 0.53% (34)
man - 0.52% (33)
one - 0.5% (32)
side - 0.49% (31)
public - 0.49% (31)
may - 0.47% (30)
not - 0.45% (29)
per - 0.45% (29)
any - 0.44% (28)
our - 0.44% (28)
america - 0.42% (27)
use - 0.42% (27)
but - 0.41% (26)
would - 0.41% (26)
january - 0.41% (26)
was - 0.36% (23)
new - 0.36% (23)
american - 0.36% (23)
their - 0.34% (22)
this - 0.33% (21)
more - 0.33% (21)
from - 0.33% (21)
november - 0.33% (21)
president - 0.33% (21)
who - 0.33% (21)
- 0.33% (21)
win - 0.31% (20)
most - 0.31% (20)
voter - 0.3% (19)
july - 0.3% (19)
votes - 0.3% (19)
they - 0.3% (19)
those - 0.3% (19)
june - 0.28% (18)
end - 0.28% (18)
- 0.28% (18)
election - 0.27% (17)
when - 0.27% (17)
low - 0.27% (17)
government - 0.27% (17)
december - 0.27% (17)
electoral - 0.27% (17)
september - 0.27% (17)
august - 0.27% (17)
about - 0.25% (16)
march - 0.25% (16)
october - 0.25% (16)
april - 0.25% (16)
on. - 0.25% (16)
february - 0.25% (16)
than - 0.25% (16)
against - 0.25% (16)
states - 0.25% (16)
cent - 0.25% (16)
make - 0.24% (15)
health - 0.24% (15)
been - 0.24% (15)
its - 0.24% (15)
these - 0.24% (15)
did - 0.24% (15)
pet - 0.24% (15)
led - 0.22% (14)
political - 0.22% (14)
which - 0.22% (14)
policy - 0.22% (14)
party - 0.22% (14)
she - 0.22% (14)
other - 0.22% (14)
sent - 0.22% (14)
now - 0.22% (14)
2016 - 0.22% (14)
birds - 0.2% (13)
rein - 0.2% (13)
how - 0.2% (13)
2015 - 0.2% (13)
2011 - 0.2% (13)
district - 0.2% (13)
like - 0.2% (13)
what - 0.2% (13)
2010 - 0.2% (13)
way - 0.2% (13)
call - 0.2% (13)
2014 - 0.2% (13)
democratic - 0.2% (13)
flynn - 0.2% (13)
republican - 0.19% (12)
candidate - 0.19% (12)
news - 0.19% (12)
sure - 0.19% (12)
point - 0.19% (12)
under - 0.19% (12)
kennedy - 0.19% (12)
law - 0.19% (12)
voters - 0.19% (12)
only - 0.19% (12)
2013 - 0.19% (12)
2005 - 0.19% (12)
2006 - 0.19% (12)
2009 - 0.19% (12)
2012 - 0.19% (12)
place - 0.17% (11)
just - 0.17% (11)
also - 0.17% (11)
partisan - 0.17% (11)
even - 0.17% (11)
2004 - 0.17% (11)
national - 0.17% (11)
does - 0.17% (11)
2003 - 0.17% (11)
citizen - 0.17% (11)
feather - 0.17% (11)
thing - 0.17% (11)
2007 - 0.17% (11)
into - 0.16% (10)
come - 0.16% (10)
there - 0.16% (10)
power - 0.16% (10)
them - 0.16% (10)
line - 0.16% (10)
many - 0.16% (10)
effect - 0.16% (10)
allow - 0.16% (10)
care - 0.16% (10)
time - 0.16% (10)
safe - 0.16% (10)
system - 0.16% (10)
americans - 0.16% (10)
cause - 0.14% (9)
day - 0.14% (9)
count - 0.14% (9)
gerrymander - 0.14% (9)
were - 0.14% (9)
major - 0.14% (9)
said - 0.14% (9)
article - 0.14% (9)
vaccine - 0.14% (9)
view - 0.14% (9)
represent - 0.14% (9)
choice - 0.14% (9)
civic - 0.14% (9)
own - 0.14% (9)
comment - 0.14% (9)
2008 - 0.14% (9)
know - 0.14% (9)
you - 0.14% (9)
say - 0.14% (9)
posed - 0.14% (9)
self - 0.13% (8)
significant - 0.13% (8)
result - 0.13% (8)
real - 0.13% (8)
hhs - 0.13% (8)
constitution - 0.13% (8)
favor - 0.13% (8)
give - 0.13% (8)
rest - 0.13% (8)
reins - 0.13% (8)
between - 0.13% (8)
filibuster - 0.13% (8)
house - 0.13% (8)
people - 0.13% (8)
citizens - 0.13% (8)
right - 0.13% (8)
sheila - 0.13% (8)
wide - 0.13% (8)
very - 0.13% (8)
scientific - 0.13% (8)
require - 0.13% (8)
2017 - 0.13% (8)
less - 0.13% (8)
once - 0.13% (8)
could - 0.13% (8)
control - 0.13% (8)
much - 0.13% (8)
trump’s - 0.13% (8)
college - 0.13% (8)
2002 - 0.13% (8)
2001 - 0.13% (8)
world - 0.13% (8)
1998 - 0.13% (8)
take - 0.13% (8)
1999 - 0.13% (8)
change - 0.13% (8)
mission - 0.11% (7)
blog - 0.11% (7)
media - 0.11% (7)
popular - 0.11% (7)
long - 0.11% (7)
candidates - 0.11% (7)
him - 0.11% (7)
position - 0.11% (7)
far - 0.11% (7)
act, - 0.11% (7)
executive - 0.11% (7)
chief - 0.11% (7)
difficult - 0.11% (7)
made - 0.11% (7)
work - 0.11% (7)
2000 - 0.11% (7)
let - 0.11% (7)
democracy - 0.11% (7)
mental - 0.11% (7)
old - 0.11% (7)
measure - 0.11% (7)
rule - 0.11% (7)
don’t - 0.11% (7)
met - 0.11% (7)
senate - 0.11% (7)
air - 0.11% (7)
population - 0.11% (7)
fact - 0.11% (7)
regulation - 0.11% (7)
donald - 0.09% (6)
great - 0.09% (6)
robert - 0.09% (6)
governor - 0.09% (6)
need - 0.09% (6)
doesn’t - 0.09% (6)
choices - 0.09% (6)
actual - 0.09% (6)
federal - 0.09% (6)
interest - 0.09% (6)
says - 0.09% (6)
representatives - 0.09% (6)
every - 0.09% (6)
support - 0.09% (6)
after - 0.09% (6)
elections - 0.09% (6)
price - 0.09% (6)
effort - 0.09% (6)
1997 - 0.09% (6)
simply - 0.09% (6)
plan - 0.09% (6)
evidence - 0.09% (6)
special - 0.09% (6)
read - 0.09% (6)
laws - 0.09% (6)
should - 0.09% (6)
high - 0.09% (6)
institution - 0.09% (6)
lack - 0.09% (6)
gerrymandering - 0.09% (6)
safety - 0.09% (6)
eight - 0.09% (6)
winner - 0.09% (6)
campaign - 0.09% (6)
governance - 0.09% (6)
vaccines - 0.09% (6)
tom - 0.09% (6)
phil - 0.09% (6)
run - 0.09% (6)
oppose - 0.09% (6)
majority - 0.09% (6)
comments - 0.09% (6)
incentive - 0.09% (6)
some - 0.08% (5)
congress - 0.08% (5)
districts - 0.08% (5)
votes. - 0.08% (5)
comes - 0.08% (5)
site - 0.08% (5)
direct - 0.08% (5)
post - 0.08% (5)
among - 0.08% (5)
used - 0.08% (5)
tend - 0.08% (5)
income - 0.08% (5)
each - 0.08% (5)
republicans - 0.08% (5)
voted - 0.08% (5)
state-level - 0.08% (5)
incumbent - 0.08% (5)
institutions - 0.08% (5)
coverage - 0.08% (5)
recent - 0.08% (5)
without - 0.08% (5)
such - 0.08% (5)
usa - 0.08% (5)
person - 0.08% (5)
asked - 0.08% (5)
seen - 0.08% (5)
appoint - 0.08% (5)
show - 0.08% (5)
education - 0.08% (5)
times - 0.08% (5)
story - 0.08% (5)
“the - 0.08% (5)
will - 0.08% (5)
believe - 0.08% (5)
because - 0.08% (5)
theories - 0.08% (5)
left - 0.08% (5)
since - 0.08% (5)
had - 0.08% (5)
science - 0.08% (5)
consider - 0.08% (5)
threat - 0.08% (5)
source - 0.08% (5)
likely - 0.08% (5)
senator - 0.08% (5)
especially - 0.08% (5)
search - 0.08% (5)
commission - 0.08% (5)
ways - 0.08% (5)
politics - 0.08% (5)
live - 0.08% (5)
2017public - 0.08% (5)
general - 0.08% (5)
pass - 0.06% (4)
while - 0.06% (4)
either - 0.06% (4)
several - 0.06% (4)
positions - 0.06% (4)
points - 0.06% (4)
today - 0.06% (4)
economy - 0.06% (4)
clinton - 0.06% (4)
sum - 0.06% (4)
hillary - 0.06% (4)
bill - 0.06% (4)
ideological - 0.06% (4)
legal - 0.06% (4)
through - 0.06% (4)
states. - 0.06% (4)
election, - 0.06% (4)
last - 0.06% (4)
open - 0.06% (4)
incoming - 0.06% (4)
two - 0.06% (4)
grow - 0.06% (4)
history - 0.06% (4)
ban - 0.06% (4)
kennedy, - 0.06% (4)
lot - 0.06% (4)
slave - 0.06% (4)
information - 0.06% (4)
according - 0.06% (4)
former - 0.06% (4)
rural - 0.06% (4)
opposed - 0.06% (4)
jr. - 0.06% (4)
social - 0.06% (4)
first - 0.06% (4)
million - 0.06% (4)
needed - 0.06% (4)
child - 0.06% (4)
years - 0.06% (4)
norms - 0.06% (4)
number - 0.06% (4)
rules - 0.06% (4)
redistricting - 0.06% (4)
local - 0.06% (4)
theory - 0.06% (4)
good - 0.06% (4)
physicians - 0.06% (4)
large - 0.06% (4)
york - 0.06% (4)
conspiracy - 0.06% (4)
incumbents - 0.06% (4)
idea - 0.06% (4)
important - 0.06% (4)
themselves - 0.06% (4)
hold - 0.06% (4)
turn - 0.06% (4)
allowing - 0.06% (4)
research - 0.06% (4)
efforts - 0.06% (4)
during - 0.06% (4)
parties - 0.06% (4)
1993 - 0.06% (4)
regulations - 0.06% (4)
opposing - 0.06% (4)
engage - 0.06% (4)
greater - 0.06% (4)
isn’t - 0.06% (4)
insurance - 0.06% (4)
despite - 0.06% (4)
called - 0.06% (4)
voting - 0.06% (4)
obvious - 0.06% (4)
both - 0.06% (4)
office - 0.06% (4)
process - 0.06% (4)
presidency - 0.06% (4)
talk - 0.06% (4)
book - 0.06% (4)
secretary - 0.06% (4)
decline - 0.06% (4)
behavior - 0.06% (4)
element - 0.06% (4)
course - 0.06% (4)
increasing - 0.06% (4)
white - 0.06% (4)
making - 0.06% (4)
improve - 0.06% (4)
going - 0.06% (4)
find - 0.06% (4)
journal - 0.06% (4)
previous - 0.06% (4)
it, - 0.06% (4)
speech - 0.06% (4)
flynn’s - 0.06% (4)
aca - 0.06% (4)
mercury - 0.05% (3)
stone - 0.05% (3)
question - 0.05% (3)
ethyl - 0.05% (3)
figure - 0.05% (3)
scientists - 0.05% (3)
follow - 0.05% (3)
fan - 0.05% (3)
slate - 0.05% (3)
won - 0.05% (3)
1996 - 0.05% (3)
however, - 0.05% (3)
put - 0.05% (3)
around - 0.05% (3)
least - 0.05% (3)
lost - 0.05% (3)
original - 0.05% (3)
effective - 0.05% (3)
three - 0.05% (3)
floor - 0.05% (3)
fox - 0.05% (3)
precise - 0.05% (3)
mann - 0.05% (3)
competition - 0.05% (3)
philosophy - 0.05% (3)
apathy - 0.05% (3)
hard - 0.05% (3)
argue - 0.05% (3)
save - 0.05% (3)
places - 0.05% (3)
filibuster. - 0.05% (3)
senators - 0.05% (3)
move - 0.05% (3)
few - 0.05% (3)
create - 0.05% (3)
rigid - 0.05% (3)
extreme - 0.05% (3)
damage - 0.05% (3)
corporate - 0.05% (3)
ability - 0.05% (3)
big - 0.05% (3)
sole - 0.05% (3)
competent - 0.05% (3)
populations - 0.05% (3)
poor - 0.05% (3)
suppress - 0.05% (3)
main - 0.05% (3)
outlet - 0.05% (3)
roll - 0.05% (3)
governors - 0.05% (3)
states, - 0.05% (3)
state’s - 0.05% (3)
matter - 0.05% (3)
chair - 0.05% (3)
gives - 0.05% (3)
influence - 0.05% (3)
jr., - 0.05% (3)
swing - 0.05% (3)
state, - 0.05% (3)
vaccination - 0.05% (3)
urban - 0.05% (3)
reform - 0.05% (3)
clear - 0.05% (3)
rejecting - 0.05% (3)
nominee - 0.05% (3)
fair - 0.05% (3)
still - 0.05% (3)
same - 0.05% (3)
race - 0.05% (3)
journalism - 0.05% (3)
danger - 0.05% (3)
virtually - 0.05% (3)
dramatically - 0.05% (3)
news. - 0.05% (3)
accept - 0.05% (3)
incentives - 0.05% (3)
advantage - 0.05% (3)
constitutional - 0.05% (3)
attention - 0.05% (3)
issue - 0.05% (3)
proposal - 0.05% (3)
guide - 0.05% (3)
staff - 0.05% (3)
programs - 0.05% (3)
meeting - 0.05% (3)
presidential - 0.05% (3)
protect - 0.05% (3)
ferengi - 0.05% (3)
chose - 0.05% (3)
himself - 0.05% (3)
code - 0.05% (3)
quality - 0.05% (3)
17, - 0.05% (3)
normal - 0.05% (3)
agency - 0.05% (3)
course, - 0.05% (3)
“an - 0.05% (3)
believes - 0.05% (3)
belief - 0.05% (3)
doing - 0.05% (3)
intelligence - 0.05% (3)
measures - 0.05% (3)
down - 0.05% (3)
levels - 0.05% (3)
given - 0.05% (3)
offer - 0.05% (3)
particular - 0.05% (3)
experience - 0.05% (3)
record - 0.05% (3)
usually - 0.05% (3)
indiana - 0.05% (3)
secretaries - 0.05% (3)
department - 0.05% (3)
vulnerable - 0.05% (3)
sponsored - 0.05% (3)
gop - 0.05% (3)
think - 0.05% (3)
then - 0.05% (3)
i’m - 0.05% (3)
human - 0.05% (3)
sharp - 0.05% (3)
concern - 0.05% (3)
recently - 0.05% (3)
economic - 0.05% (3)
legislation - 0.05% (3)
wants - 0.05% (3)
group - 0.05% (3)
agencies - 0.05% (3)
cabinet - 0.05% (3)
aren’t - 0.05% (3)
medicare - 0.05% (3)
meaning - 0.05% (3)
afford - 0.05% (3)
favors - 0.05% (3)
hate - 0.05% (3)
often - 0.05% (3)
why - 0.05% (3)
president. - 0.05% (3)
makes - 0.05% (3)
named - 0.05% (3)
contributions - 0.05% (3)
it’s - 0.05% (3)
country - 0.05% (3)
scariest - 0.05% (3)
foreign - 0.05% (3)
couldn’t - 0.05% (3)
books - 0.05% (3)
koch - 0.05% (3)
security - 0.05% (3)
said, - 0.05% (3)
extremist - 0.05% (3)
head - 0.05% (3)
came - 0.05% (3)
that, - 0.05% (3)
chait - 0.05% (3)
being - 0.05% (3)
appointment - 0.05% (3)
editorial - 0.03% (2)
pretty - 0.03% (2)
destroy - 0.03% (2)
extensive - 0.03% (2)
argument - 0.03% (2)
domestic - 0.03% (2)
cited - 0.03% (2)
education, - 0.03% (2)
activities - 0.03% (2)
single - 0.03% (2)
wild - 0.03% (2)
doctor - 0.03% (2)
running - 0.03% (2)
radio - 0.03% (2)
media, - 0.03% (2)
horribles - 0.03% (2)
fake - 0.03% (2)
propaganda - 0.03% (2)
sites - 0.03% (2)
internet - 0.03% (2)
things - 0.03% (2)
evidence. - 0.03% (2)
range - 0.03% (2)
overwhelming - 0.03% (2)
facts - 0.03% (2)
uncongenial - 0.03% (2)
hhs, - 0.03% (2)
term - 0.03% (2)
understand - 0.03% (2)
powerful - 0.03% (2)
outlets - 0.03% (2)
difference - 0.03% (2)
final - 0.03% (2)
defend - 0.03% (2)
sixty - 0.03% (2)
principle - 0.03% (2)
polarization - 0.03% (2)
increased - 0.03% (2)
business - 0.03% (2)
institute - 0.03% (2)
super-majority - 0.03% (2)
mechanism - 0.03% (2)
vote. - 0.03% (2)
1995 - 0.03% (2)
society - 0.03% (2)
health, - 0.03% (2)
leave - 0.03% (2)
case, - 0.03% (2)
salon - 0.03% (2)
process, - 0.03% (2)
content - 0.03% (2)
eschew - 0.03% (2)
personal - 0.03% (2)
suffer - 0.03% (2)
evaluate - 0.03% (2)
it. - 0.03% (2)
education. - 0.03% (2)
team - 0.03% (2)
justice - 0.03% (2)
price, - 0.03% (2)
officials - 0.03% (2)
reinforce - 0.03% (2)
michael - 0.03% (2)
services - 0.03% (2)
cuckoo - 0.03% (2)
informed - 0.03% (2)
they’re - 0.03% (2)
coroner - 0.03% (2)
medical - 0.03% (2)
________________ - 0.03% (2)
medicine - 0.03% (2)
regard - 0.03% (2)
trumpsheila - 0.03% (2)
choose - 0.03% (2)
level, - 0.03% (2)
parade - 0.03% (2)
(not - 0.03% (2)
must - 0.03% (2)
widely - 0.03% (2)
(the - 0.03% (2)
push - 0.03% (2)
decision - 0.03% (2)
transition - 0.03% (2)
it does require - 0.03% (2)
autism, - 0.03% (2)
democrats - 0.03% (2)
discredited - 0.03% (2)
true - 0.03% (2)
mexican - 0.03% (2)
proponent - 0.03% (2)
involved - 0.03% (2)
sex - 0.03% (2)
reality - 0.03% (2)
gave - 0.03% (2)
posts - 0.03% (2)
frequent - 0.03% (2)
eating - 0.03% (2)
experts - 0.03% (2)
knows - 0.03% (2)
wrong - 0.03% (2)
later - 0.03% (2)
familiar - 0.03% (2)
week - 0.03% (2)
anti-vaccine - 0.03% (2)
tiny - 0.03% (2)
speed - 0.03% (2)
briefing - 0.03% (2)
one. - 0.03% (2)
seek - 0.03% (2)
protection - 0.03% (2)
asking - 0.03% (2)
qualities - 0.03% (2)
limit - 0.03% (2)
daily - 0.03% (2)
eighty-seven - 0.03% (2)
hundred - 0.03% (2)
trump, - 0.03% (2)
pressing, - 0.03% (2)
rolling - 0.03% (2)
example, - 0.03% (2)
method - 0.03% (2)
older - 0.03% (2)
nuclear - 0.03% (2)
stunning - 0.03% (2)
month - 0.03% (2)
trust - 0.03% (2)
adviser - 0.03% (2)
partisanship - 0.03% (2)
behaviors - 0.03% (2)
powers - 0.03% (2)
session - 0.03% (2)
always - 0.03% (2)
court - 0.03% (2)
times, - 0.03% (2)
views - 0.03% (2)
chosen - 0.03% (2)
rise - 0.03% (2)
literacy - 0.03% (2)
largely - 0.03% (2)
military - 0.03% (2)
mention - 0.03% (2)
too - 0.03% (2)
widespread - 0.03% (2)
racial - 0.03% (2)
papers - 0.03% (2)
paragraph - 0.03% (2)
crucial - 0.03% (2)
threaten - 0.03% (2)
equally - 0.03% (2)
climate - 0.03% (2)
consensus - 0.03% (2)
delusional - 0.03% (2)
america’s - 0.03% (2)
enlightenment - 0.03% (2)
really - 0.03% (2)
divide - 0.03% (2)
democracy, - 0.03% (2)
entire - 0.03% (2)
equality - 0.03% (2)
archives - 0.03% (2)
prescription - 0.03% (2)
resentment - 0.03% (2)
adequate - 0.03% (2)
select - 0.03% (2)
speaking - 0.03% (2)
subordinate - 0.03% (2)
addressing - 0.03% (2)
required - 0.03% (2)
minority - 0.03% (2)
congressional - 0.03% (2)
amar - 0.03% (2)
reed - 0.03% (2)
(albeit - 0.03% (2)
educated - 0.03% (2)
way, - 0.03% (2)
advantages - 0.03% (2)
california’s - 0.03% (2)
energy - 0.03% (2)
center - 0.03% (2)
noted - 0.03% (2)
system, - 0.03% (2)
out, - 0.03% (2)
impose - 0.03% (2)
losing - 0.03% (2)
close - 0.03% (2)
considerable - 0.03% (2)
vote, - 0.03% (2)
lengthy - 0.03% (2)
safety, - 0.03% (2)
received - 0.03% (2)
laws, - 0.03% (2)
more” - 0.03% (2)
south - 0.03% (2)
“winner - 0.03% (2)
food - 0.03% (2)
florida - 0.03% (2)
mischief - 0.03% (2)
strategic - 0.03% (2)
the new - 0.03% (2)
washington - 0.03% (2)
pernicious - 0.03% (2)
strip - 0.03% (2)
current - 0.03% (2)
elections, - 0.03% (2)
raskin - 0.03% (2)
safety. - 0.03% (2)
$100,000,000 - 0.03% (2)
executives - 0.03% (2)
reason - 0.03% (2)
face - 0.03% (2)
president, - 0.03% (2)
mayors - 0.03% (2)
version - 0.03% (2)
allowed - 0.03% (2)
slaves - 0.03% (2)
annual effect on - 0.03% (2)
proportion - 0.03% (2)
huge - 0.03% (2)
all” - 0.03% (2)
thanks - 0.03% (2)
kolbert - 0.03% (2)
caucus” - 0.03% (2)
elevated - 0.03% (2)
reagan - 0.03% (2)
substantial - 0.03% (2)
upon - 0.03% (2)
 it - 0.03% (2)
contempt - 0.03% (2)
merits - 0.03% (2)
“lunatic - 0.03% (2)
increasingly - 0.03% (2)
norms. - 0.03% (2)
forces - 0.03% (2)
something - 0.03% (2)
extent - 0.03% (2)
sufficient - 0.03% (2)
proposals - 0.03% (2)
anything - 0.03% (2)
harmful - 0.03% (2)
obama - 0.03% (2)
now? - 0.03% (2)
codes - 0.03% (2)
15, - 0.03% (2)
institutions, - 0.03% (2)
argued - 0.03% (2)
inconsistent - 0.03% (2)
them. - 0.03% (2)
conservative - 0.03% (2)
web - 0.03% (2)
translated - 0.03% (2)
desmogblog, - 0.03% (2)
supporters - 0.03% (2)
organizations - 0.03% (2)
individual - 0.03% (2)
president-elect - 0.03% (2)
life - 0.03% (2)
corrupt - 0.03% (2)
transportation - 0.03% (2)
utility - 0.03% (2)
none - 0.03% (2)
activist - 0.03% (2)
whatever - 0.03% (2)
published - 0.03% (2)
well, - 0.03% (2)
kerpen - 0.03% (2)
 in - 0.03% (2)
us. - 0.03% (2)
reach - 0.03% (2)
cultural - 0.03% (2)
me: - 0.03% (2)
star - 0.03% (2)
whole - 0.03% (2)
16, - 0.03% (2)
fundamental - 0.03% (2)
impossible - 0.03% (2)
hours - 0.03% (2)
tradition - 0.03% (2)
enthusiastic - 0.03% (2)
we’ve - 0.03% (2)
allows - 0.03% (2)
today, - 0.03% (2)
communication - 0.03% (2)
sense - 0.03% (2)
administer - 0.03% (2)
changes - 0.03% (2)
empowered - 0.03% (2)
placement - 0.03% (2)
contrast - 0.03% (2)
seats - 0.03% (2)
pick - 0.03% (2)
history. - 0.03% (2)
public, - 0.03% (2)
product - 0.03% (2)
deviation - 0.03% (2)
intent - 0.03% (2)
exclusively - 0.03% (2)
actually - 0.03% (2)
polls - 0.03% (2)
fraud - 0.03% (2)
philosophical - 0.03% (2)
george - 0.03% (2)
notions - 0.03% (2)
place. - 0.03% (2)
begin - 0.03% (2)
cannot - 0.03% (2)
average - 0.03% (2)
expansion - 0.03% (2)
and, - 0.03% (2)
together - 0.03% (2)
fight - 0.03% (2)
money - 0.03% (2)
bush, - 0.03% (2)
drew - 0.03% (2)
policy. - 0.03% (2)
focused - 0.03% (2)
i’ve - 0.03% (2)
tobacco - 0.03% (2)
common - 0.03% (2)
use, - 0.03% (2)
bipartisan - 0.03% (2)
implement - 0.03% (2)
clinical - 0.03% (2)
tax - 0.03% (2)
risk - 0.03% (2)
consequence - 0.03% (2)
worse - 0.03% (2)
thousand - 0.03% (2)
orenstein - 0.03% (2)
dollars - 0.03% (2)
already - 0.03% (2)
shown - 0.03% (2)
include - 0.03% (2)
written - 0.03% (2)
compromise - 0.03% (2)
market - 0.03% (2)
dominated - 0.03% (2)
plans - 0.03% (2)
accepted - 0.03% (2)
set - 0.03% (2)
effect, - 0.03% (2)
americans. - 0.03% (2)
rather - 0.03% (2)
legislators - 0.03% (2)
aptly - 0.03% (2)
five - 0.03% (2)
administration. - 0.03% (2)
controls - 0.03% (2)
lines - 0.03% (2)
census, - 0.03% (2)
approach - 0.03% (2)
parties. - 0.03% (2)
incomes - 0.03% (2)
funding - 0.03% (2)
enacted - 0.03% (2)
nominees - 0.03% (2)
patients - 0.03% (2)
women - 0.03% (2)
voters. - 0.03% (2)
lgbt - 0.03% (2)
takes - 0.03% (2)
is, - 0.03% (2)
primary - 0.03% (2)
challenges - 0.03% (2)
expanding - 0.03% (2)
count, - 0.03% (2)
reduce - 0.03% (2)
where - 0.03% (2)
cancer - 0.03% (2)
stance - 0.03% (2)
politics. - 0.03% (2)
rational - 0.03% (2)
leader - 0.03% (2)
produces - 0.03% (2)
turnout - 0.03% (2)
candidates. - 0.03% (2)
participation, - 0.03% (2)
subsidies - 0.03% (2)
talking - 0.03% (2)
of the - 0.83% (53)
at the - 0.38% (24)
or the - 0.33% (21)
and the - 0.27% (17)
for the - 0.25% (16)
that the - 0.24% (15)
to the - 0.24% (15)
in the - 0.22% (14)
on the - 0.19% (12)
birds of - 0.17% (11)
a feather - 0.17% (11)
the most - 0.17% (11)
with the - 0.17% (11)
the electoral - 0.14% (9)
on birds - 0.14% (9)
electoral college - 0.13% (8)
and go - 0.13% (8)
by the - 0.13% (8)
any of - 0.13% (8)
electoral votes - 0.11% (7)
is the - 0.11% (7)
many of - 0.11% (7)
as the - 0.11% (7)
reins act - 0.11% (7)
the world - 0.09% (6)
from the - 0.09% (6)
we have - 0.09% (6)
policy and - 0.09% (6)
there is - 0.09% (6)
donald trump - 0.09% (6)
the reins - 0.09% (6)
out that - 0.08% (5)
view all - 0.08% (5)
he was - 0.08% (5)
the senate - 0.08% (5)
have a - 0.08% (5)
that a - 0.08% (5)
2017public policy - 0.08% (5)
do not - 0.08% (5)
control of - 0.06% (4)
one of - 0.06% (4)
but it - 0.06% (4)
led the - 0.06% (4)
health in - 0.06% (4)
new york - 0.06% (4)
that is - 0.06% (4)
f. kennedy - 0.06% (4)
according to - 0.06% (4)
of course - 0.06% (4)
during the - 0.06% (4)
voted against - 0.06% (4)
have been - 0.06% (4)
it would - 0.06% (4)
of government - 0.06% (4)
and it - 0.06% (4)
been in - 0.06% (4)
in his - 0.06% (4)
when the - 0.06% (4)
to make - 0.06% (4)
more than - 0.06% (4)
the party - 0.06% (4)
the house - 0.06% (4)
the only - 0.06% (4)
and has - 0.06% (4)
has been - 0.06% (4)
house of - 0.06% (4)
hillary clinton - 0.06% (4)
and in - 0.06% (4)
the state - 0.06% (4)
all of - 0.06% (4)
the article - 0.06% (4)
fox news - 0.05% (3)
the bill - 0.05% (3)
know the - 0.05% (3)
a major - 0.05% (3)
the economy - 0.05% (3)
was that - 0.05% (3)
of course, - 0.05% (3)
under the - 0.05% (3)
the executive - 0.05% (3)
likely to - 0.05% (3)
the filibuster - 0.05% (3)
in which - 0.05% (3)
to vote - 0.05% (3)
of these - 0.05% (3)
from a - 0.05% (3)
opposing party - 0.05% (3)
the other - 0.05% (3)
far more - 0.05% (3)
the opposing - 0.05% (3)
the general - 0.05% (3)
incentives for - 0.05% (3)
the fact - 0.05% (3)
points out - 0.05% (3)
it has - 0.05% (3)
state-level control - 0.05% (3)
about the - 0.05% (3)
a state - 0.05% (3)
that would - 0.05% (3)
like the - 0.05% (3)
the more - 0.05% (3)
of that - 0.05% (3)
and allow - 0.05% (3)
to which - 0.05% (3)
what i - 0.05% (3)
would make - 0.05% (3)
element of - 0.05% (3)
the winner - 0.05% (3)
when it - 0.05% (3)
sheila kennedy - 0.05% (3)
of trump - 0.05% (3)
the new - 0.05% (3)
to chair - 0.05% (3)
and against - 0.05% (3)
the first - 0.05% (3)
said that - 0.05% (3)
in favor - 0.05% (3)
that vaccines - 0.05% (3)
most of - 0.05% (3)
they would - 0.05% (3)
says that - 0.05% (3)
going to - 0.05% (3)
health insurance - 0.05% (3)
the scientific - 0.05% (3)
and he - 0.05% (3)
chair a - 0.05% (3)
f. kennedy, - 0.05% (3)
favor of - 0.05% (3)
not only - 0.05% (3)
for those - 0.05% (3)
reins act, - 0.05% (3)
of state - 0.05% (3)
commission on - 0.05% (3)
needed to - 0.05% (3)
that flynn - 0.05% (3)
interest in - 0.05% (3)
if the - 0.05% (3)
difficult to - 0.05% (3)
have lost - 0.05% (3)
fact that - 0.05% (3)
posed by - 0.05% (3)
rolling stone - 0.03% (2)
evidence that - 0.03% (2)
policy. the - 0.03% (2)
he knows - 0.03% (2)
damage to - 0.03% (2)
them to - 0.03% (2)
with his - 0.03% (2)
have seen - 0.03% (2)
ability to - 0.03% (2)
there are - 0.03% (2)
is inconsistent - 0.03% (2)
translated into - 0.03% (2)
will be - 0.03% (2)
with no - 0.03% (2)
where those - 0.03% (2)
it was - 0.03% (2)
often do - 0.03% (2)
in history. - 0.03% (2)
him to - 0.03% (2)
trump asked - 0.03% (2)
vaccines cause - 0.03% (2)
put it - 0.03% (2)
the right - 0.03% (2)
and transportation - 0.03% (2)
hundred and - 0.03% (2)
create a - 0.03% (2)
of their - 0.03% (2)
the republican - 0.03% (2)
after the - 0.03% (2)
and eighty-seven - 0.03% (2)
a hundred - 0.03% (2)
fundamental democratic - 0.03% (2)
called the - 0.03% (2)
and made - 0.03% (2)
and public - 0.03% (2)
it much - 0.03% (2)
the original - 0.03% (2)
his or - 0.03% (2)
the good - 0.03% (2)
not engage - 0.03% (2)
the difference - 0.03% (2)
the current - 0.03% (2)
prescription for - 0.03% (2)
all citizens - 0.03% (2)
and other - 0.03% (2)
the incoming - 0.03% (2)
the national - 0.03% (2)
main source - 0.03% (2)
work to - 0.03% (2)
range of - 0.03% (2)
to implement - 0.03% (2)
civic literacy - 0.03% (2)
propaganda and - 0.03% (2)
fake news. - 0.03% (2)
themselves from - 0.03% (2)
that there - 0.03% (2)
information that - 0.03% (2)
the local - 0.03% (2)
but we - 0.03% (2)
we are - 0.03% (2)
already a - 0.03% (2)
of public - 0.03% (2)
points out, - 0.03% (2)
at trump - 0.03% (2)
a senator - 0.03% (2)
at least - 0.03% (2)
new rules - 0.03% (2)
asked him - 0.03% (2)
senate floor - 0.03% (2)
has increased - 0.03% (2)
as important - 0.03% (2)
the real - 0.03% (2)
a result - 0.03% (2)
making the - 0.03% (2)
choice of - 0.03% (2)
chief executives - 0.03% (2)
jr., a - 0.03% (2)
a meeting - 0.03% (2)
important as - 0.03% (2)
vaccination has - 0.03% (2)
science is - 0.03% (2)
the age - 0.03% (2)
and policy - 0.03% (2)
is difficult - 0.03% (2)
that have - 0.03% (2)
voter apathy - 0.03% (2)
and voted - 0.03% (2)
expansion of - 0.03% (2)
system of - 0.03% (2)
tradition of - 0.03% (2)
sharp contrast - 0.03% (2)
concern for - 0.03% (2)
the public, - 0.03% (2)
the presidency - 0.03% (2)
w. bush, - 0.03% (2)
mental health - 0.03% (2)
could not - 0.03% (2)
has voted - 0.03% (2)
he favors - 0.03% (2)
against the - 0.03% (2)
and self - 0.03% (2)
those with - 0.03% (2)
in effect, - 0.03% (2)
difficult for - 0.03% (2)
would be - 0.03% (2)
accepted the - 0.03% (2)
public safety - 0.03% (2)
is that - 0.03% (2)
the regulations - 0.03% (2)
the power - 0.03% (2)
a power - 0.03% (2)
course, these - 0.03% (2)
annual effect on the - 0.03% (2)
begin by - 0.03% (2)
health, and - 0.03% (2)
$100,000,000 or - 0.03% (2)
the way - 0.03% (2)
find it - 0.03% (2)
a president - 0.03% (2)
to pass - 0.03% (2)
it last - 0.03% (2)
came to - 0.03% (2)
led by - 0.03% (2)
the appointment - 0.03% (2)
national security - 0.03% (2)
all the - 0.03% (2)
one that - 0.03% (2)
qualities of - 0.03% (2)
flynn is - 0.03% (2)
chait says - 0.03% (2)
of health - 0.03% (2)
meeting with - 0.03% (2)
his staff - 0.03% (2)
that he - 0.03% (2)
this is - 0.03% (2)
our incoming - 0.03% (2)
cuckoo birds - 0.03% (2)
parade of - 0.03% (2)
mission of - 0.03% (2)
trump wants - 0.03% (2)
tom price, - 0.03% (2)
and human - 0.03% (2)
and then - 0.03% (2)
i think - 0.03% (2)
economy of - 0.03% (2)
“an annual effect on - 0.03% (2)
gerrymandering is - 0.03% (2)
system that - 0.03% (2)
thanks to - 0.03% (2)
“winner take - 0.03% (2)
of those - 0.03% (2)
winner of - 0.03% (2)
popular vote, - 0.03% (2)
result is - 0.03% (2)
of california’s - 0.03% (2)
voters over - 0.03% (2)
and they - 0.03% (2)
law at - 0.03% (2)
slave states - 0.03% (2)
and there - 0.03% (2)
most popular - 0.03% (2)
won the - 0.03% (2)
state’s electoral - 0.03% (2)
popular votes - 0.03% (2)
a majority - 0.03% (2)
but the - 0.03% (2)
in states - 0.03% (2)
just a - 0.03% (2)
party that - 0.03% (2)
controls the - 0.03% (2)
which has - 0.03% (2)
districts to - 0.03% (2)
the increasing - 0.03% (2)
the political - 0.03% (2)
three states. - 0.03% (2)
the popular - 0.03% (2)
of $100,000,000 - 0.03% (2)
in any - 0.03% (2)
or more” - 0.03% (2)
levels of - 0.03% (2)
these are - 0.03% (2)
web site - 0.03% (2)
are the - 0.03% (2)
the election, - 0.03% (2)
and is - 0.03% (2)
 it is - 0.03% (2)
what is - 0.03% (2)
sure to - 0.03% (2)
“lunatic caucus” - 0.03% (2)
are sufficient - 0.03% (2)
even the - 0.03% (2)
of american - 0.03% (2)
the gop - 0.03% (2)
what now? - 0.03% (2)
that said, - 0.03% (2)
would have - 0.03% (2)
even when - 0.03% (2)
the extent - 0.03% (2)
political scientists - 0.03% (2)
for example, - 0.03% (2)
that has - 0.03% (2)
argued that - 0.03% (2)
inconsistent with - 0.03% (2)
should we - 0.03% (2)
number of - 0.03% (2)
the parade - 0.03% (2)
of a feather - 0.17% (11)
birds of a - 0.17% (11)
on birds of - 0.14% (9)
policy and governance - 0.09% (6)
many of the - 0.08% (5)
2017public policy and - 0.08% (5)
house of representatives - 0.06% (4)
there is a - 0.06% (4)
robert f. kennedy, - 0.05% (3)
of the opposing - 0.05% (3)
the fact that - 0.05% (3)
a prescription for - 0.03% (2)
many of these - 0.03% (2)
the winner of - 0.03% (2)
the difference between - 0.03% (2)
we have lost - 0.03% (2)
is a prescription - 0.03% (2)
and fake news. - 0.03% (2)
a hundred and - 0.03% (2)
hundred and eighty-seven - 0.03% (2)
him to chair - 0.03% (2)
a commission on - 0.03% (2)
as the article - 0.03% (2)
the choice of - 0.03% (2)
we have seen - 0.03% (2)
he knows more - 0.03% (2)
that vaccines cause - 0.03% (2)
the scientific consensus - 0.03% (2)
chait says that - 0.03% (2)
choice of the - 0.03% (2)
course, these are - 0.03% (2)
the parade of - 0.03% (2)
opposed to the - 0.03% (2)
and human services - 0.03% (2)
for the most - 0.03% (2)
has voted against - 0.03% (2)
and has voted - 0.03% (2)
favor of a - 0.03% (2)
for those with - 0.03% (2)
the most vulnerable - 0.03% (2)
annual effect on the economy - 0.03% (2)
at the local - 0.03% (2)
of $100,000,000 or - 0.03% (2)
of what i - 0.03% (2)
the extent to - 0.03% (2)
should we do - 0.03% (2)
the popular vote - 0.03% (2)
state’s electoral votes - 0.03% (2)
as we have - 0.03% (2)
argued that the - 0.03% (2)
i find it - 0.03% (2)
despite the fact - 0.03% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.