erodes long-term trust in electoral process
Not important unless he takes action to make that happen.
This was destructive to the debate as an institution.
The JOD is not the president's attorney.  This is a misuse of a public institution and set a bad precedent for the future.
It is rather common for Congress to lard bills with pork etc.
Having a president advocate that his supporters vote more than once erodes democratic norms and values.
The president is advocating the use of force against the press.  This undermines the 1st amendment.
This undermines civility in the election and that the opposition is loyal.
The lack of a clear process for banning WeChat raises questions about the protection of property rights in the US.  If a president can arbitrarily restrict access to WeChat - he can do the same to other apps etc.
It appears this is tied to the election.  As such it is abnormal and important.  More importantly, we can no longer trust the explanations for these types of decisions.   The level of lying and deceit from the current administration makes one distrust any action by leaders of organizations and agencies.
War, US Defense Policy, US Foreign Policy
This rating is for the collaboration, not for the committee's investigation or finding
Legislative spending priorities must be respected
Executive orders should be sparingly used and not to replace legislative powers
It is not normal to ask followers to commit a felony
While a full court is needed, the purpose to which the president wishes to apply the court's power is suspect
Census must be carefully and fully performed and because of COVID that requires additional time to complete
Trump seemingly makes clear that he will not or cannot denounce right-wing groups that are widely considered to be, by his own administration, the leading domestic terrorism threats. Another example of flagrant disregard of core principles of a free and democratic government.
Againi, one of the most dangerous things a presidient can say, undermining public confidence in the election and therefore in representative government.
Yet another instance of Trump violating common sense and decency. But then he has waged war on the press since his first week in power.
Trump says and does a lot of things that are odd. Not all are that important. He lives to run against convention, but maybe he doesn't realize the damage he is doing to governing institutions and culture.
HHS is simply not to be trusted along longer, or Homeland Security either for that matter. Far too much political interference from the White House. Ditto for the Census.
It isn't just that the PO began making changes that caused delay, but that it did so right before the election, presumably with the explicit goal of slowing down mail-in ballots, and likely at the direction of the White House.
Likely an idle threat, but even so, saying such things can undermine public confidence in the election, never a good outcome.
As noted, this is one of the astonishing actions by the Trump administration, and has been rejected repeatedly by the courts.
The administration's actual motives notwithstanding, this is a somewhat ordinary thing performed in a rather unorthodox way.
No one is above the law.  Those in power must be held to higher standards to ensure rule of law.
The military cannot impede the first amendment outside of major war.
The blatant hypocrisy of this is galling even by political standards.  When a conservative party shreds the political fabric and trashes traditions, it's a sign that the Constitution as we know it is doomed.  In 2016, it was baldly wrong to oppose Garland (moderate, qualified) 8 months prior because we needed a sense of the people, but now a majority of those same people do not want to ram through Barrett (extreme, qualified) and are against both Trump and Republicans. If democracy works, the leaders listen when the people speak.  We don't have that.  Majorities in this cycle and the last preferred Democrats by a wide margin, yet Democrats do not control any of the branches of government and have not had a majority on the USSC since Nixon.  This is no democracy.
Health officials have to be able to freely and publicly voice the likely consequences of policies.  Whether political actors choose some consequences or others is a political decision above the pay grade of health officials.
Cheating, like germs, is common.  Not punishing cheating, like not defending against germs, is dangerous.  The United States, as a political body, has AIDS.  If you cannot condemn such brazen collaboration with other states to win elections, then the United States is no longer a great power.  If the golden rule is so dead, parties are fools not to solicit foreign help from China, Russia, Germany, etc.  It's hair-on-fire WRONG.
It SHOULD be the norm that committee's work bipartisan-ly, but it's not really the normal right now.
This is absolutely playing politics. Dirty.
Proud Boys are essentially a fascist or near-fascist organization bent on terrorizing or at least intimidating legitimate protesters, racial minorities, liberals, and leftists. Appearing at demonstrations bearing semi-automatic weapons is intimidation or worse. At best, their actions skirt the limits of the law. No president of the US, no matter how conservative, should  say anything that may be considered legitimating such an organization.
It's a threat against the principle of legislative oversight over the executive. It also may undermine faith in electoral results and conceal real threats to the integrity of the coming election.
This is a threat against the principle of lawful transition of power. It is hard to say when Trump is joking and when he is serious. It is impossible to tell how extremist groups will interpret his comment.
This is an effort to undermine confidence in the electoral process, perhaps discourage voters. At worst, it may be an effort to undermine the election itself, especially in states where the voting is by mail and the President is unpopular.
Potentially, this would function to intimidate members of racial minorities and more generally poor people.
Another effort to undermine the election.
Voting, elections, political parties, redistricting
Again, this is fundamentally anti-democratic... and also incredibly stupid. If the president believes the country to be under attack, it is his job to do something about it, not just sit impotently by and tweet about it.
As Adam Przeworski put it, "democracy is a system in which parties lose elections." The president claiming he won't concede when he loses is the very definition of anti-democratic behavior. What is most important, here, however, is that pundits stop asking him this question. If he loses, he loses. His term expires at noon on January 20th, 2021 whether he ever concedes or not. Journalists and others who keep asking him this question are granting him a power that he *does not* have. He can say he won until his dying day. It doesn't matter. The sitting president doesn't decide who wins or loses an election.
Akin to his advocacy of torture and war crimes during the 2016 campaign and his advocacy of police brutality during his presidency.
He cannot win an election decided by the people, so he expects the courts to install him in office.
Trump consistently demonstrates that he knows nothing about the pressing issues of the day. Moreover, he is uninterested in learning. He instead listens to poisonous voices from foreign sources and obvious profiteering disinformation campaigns for his "information" and digests it uncritically. Forest management is indeed part of the problem, but California and Norway are not equivalent when it comes to their climate and propensity for forest fires. Additionally, the fires in California are happening at the wildland-urban interface, *not* as natural wildfires. Finally, the territory on fire that he blames California for "mismanaging" is under federal management, not state management, making management his duty, which he is obviously shirking.
Yet again, very abnormal and very important. The sitting president is advocating voter intimidation and voter suppression. This is not a free and fair election.
In addition to McConnell stealing court seats, this is the Republican Party's effort to lock in an apartheid government for years to come.
Latin American Politics, Democracy and Authoritarianism
If the electorate doesn't believe that the system is fair participation is depressed. That is undemocratic
If people do not believe the system is fair they do not participate in the system. This is the antithesis of democratic government
This undermines the legitimacy of the electoral process
As bad as American media is (and it is pretty bad) it is the only outside system that allows the electorate to evaluate the performance of the government. Undermining that system is corrosive to democratic norms and values
Trump doesn't joke. He may or may not believe that he has the authority to do this, but a non-zero number of the people who support him believe it. The President has a Constitutional duty to support and defend the laws of the United States. Saying this undermines Constitutional principles
This violates free expression, a core American democratic principle
Puerto Rico presents a challenge to American democracy, because its citizens do not have federal representation.The United States has a responsibility to the citizens of Puerto Rico, and although this aid package is pitifully inadequate it at least acknowledges this responsibility
Science is not political. Government should protect its citizens. Politicizing science places the population at risk
In fairness, it is not clear to me that he was actually asking his supporters to engage in election fraud.  But, nonetheless, it was an abnormal statement with high impact.
legitimating violence against the press is not great!
Again, subordinating public health to partisan ends
DOJ has obviously and explicitly been subordinated to partisan ends
Every single time that there has been a vacancy on the SC during an election year, the president has nominated a candidate.
This survey is becoming more and more partisan each time I take it, and that is not meant to be a compliment.
The inability of POTUS to denounce known violent racist groups is completely abnormal.  It is not hard to do.  When pressured, he told them to "stand by" -- possibly encouraging a build-up of animosity for future action.  This is incredibly unpresidential and shocking that he would not denounce groups that are dedicated to the destruction of another racial/ethnic group in this country.  It sows conflict and racial unrest vs. attempting to unify and tamp down on divisions among the American electorate.
Why are they intervening in such a case?
Given that we need $$ for actual relief, it seems incredibly nonsensical.  At the same time, the process of reallocating funds is not abnormal. It's just strange on this topic.
Hopefully most people realize you only vote once.
It is completely unacceptable but I rated it less than completely important because it deals with a corporate entity (vs. rights of individual citizens).
You cannot withhold funds to deal with state emergencies because the state doesn't support you in an election.
He's just signaling to those who don't like the demographic changes that are occurring in the US that he will work to maintain their view of the world.
You are doing important work.  Thank you.
The president refusing to condemn white supremacy groups on national television and telling one group to stand by is abhorrent and an example of him condoning racist ideologies and violence.
The Justice Department is not the president's personal law firm.
This is a clear move to suppress voting by mail and to create and excuse to remain in office if he loses the election.
Instead of providing assistance to a natural disaster, the leader of the country threatens to punish the state?!  This is the opposite of good governance and is extremely corrupt.
Presidents have the constitutional authority to nominate justices for seats when they arise.  Until 2016, this was not a question.  However, GOP actions to not consider Garland during an election year creates some doubt about the norms of nomination and confirmation during election years.
Secretary of state using a diplomatic trip to further his party's electoral fortunes is illegal and unprecedented.
An example of using government agencies to attack opponents and undermine faith in elections.  Authoritarian regimes do this, not democratic ones.
State political institutions. LGBTQ Politics, Direct Democracy, Representation
It is a clear violation of the Hatch amendment allowing the incumbent to mingle the powers of office with the election, violating the equal opportunity norms in democratic elections.
This is a strategy of voter suppression and an attempt to undermine a democratic election before it starts.
This is dangerous and a potential 1st amendment violation.
This is not even the worst part.  He blamed California for poor fire management when most of the fires are taking place in federal forests.
What the debate has shown is that there are no clear rules or precedent here. Both sides have used the ambiguity to advance their interests.  What was extremely disheartening in this case, was that Republicans created a fake norm four years ago, and then violated that same fake norms four years later. The process undermines trust in any informal norms and rules.
Again this is a clear abuse of the powers of office for re-election.
A member of a campaign conspiring with a foreign government is absolutely normal, and undoubtedly happens on both sides every election year (just as U.S. tampering occurs in just about every election worldwide). The strange thing here is that it came out publicly.
How many times did Joe Biden interrupt Paul Ryan in the 2012 VP debate ? Almost 100 wasn't it ? And Biden interrupted Trump first. Now was it normal for a challenger to call a sitting President of any party a "clown" in such a debate ? I literally don't think I've ever seen that before. And the Biden-Trump debacle still pales in comparison to the HW Bush-Ferraro smackdown from 1984.
This is  nothing new. It's not a great trend and it's something Congress might try doing it's actual job by taking more difficult positions than it's reelection minded members seem to want to. Plus, was it normal when Trump's predecessor produced a whole new category of protected immigrants with the stroke of a pen because he decided Congress wasn't going to work with him on the issue ? It's just an example but it shows there's nothing new about this kind of behavior.
The relationship between the Intelligence Community and the elected officials of the country is something we should be more concerned about. JFK, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush and now Donald Trump all felt that they had been lied to or misled by these folks. Deven Nunes has his own stories about trying to deal with the Intelligence Community and the FBI and now this. All of this is a negative trend in an allegedly representative democracy.
As per Bachner and Ginsberg, unelected bureaucrats issue a lot more rules that become policy than do Congress and the President. You claim to be concerned about representative democracy but you've never once referenced that trend or their work in asking a question about what other possible threats are out there for representative governance in this country.
I mean this seems like part of the job for most Presidents.
In the Republic of Ireland (hardly an authoritarian state) the military holds onto the ballots overnight for the three days it takes to count them. Imagine if Trump proposed that......
Hardly the first time there's been a remote speech at a convention. Certainly won't be the last.
It would be a really abnormal story except for the fact that we currently have a large number of states trying to do absentee ballots at a scale that they never have before and there have been problems in some state because of that.
Indicates president's racism or lack of understanding of the issue
I know it has been done in the past but this shows Attorney General's total subordination to president and over the top efforts to please him.
Bowing to wishes of the president. They seem to have no ability to think on their own.
He doesn't know that it is illegal. It is just another campaign tactic for the president.
Appears to be for no purpose other than to keep election ballots from being delivered. Another devious plan by devious people
President wants to divert attention away from real issues and to the (unfounded) idea of corrupt electoral practices
Shows disregard for and/or lack of understanding of Covid 19 issues
The president has politicized the Census, unfortunately.
I love this survey and believe it to be incredibly valuable. Thank you.
The president is not an articulate person and is incapable of walking misstatements back. I'm not convinced he was trying to egg on the proud boys but instead mangled his attempt to respond correctly to the moderator. But he's a stubborn guy who can't admit fault so it sure looks bad.
Sadly governing by executive fiat is normal and this predates Trump. Congress has failed to govern effectively for some time now
What could Congress bring itself to do if it heard something was off?
The only odd thing is the administration's emphasis on jerusalem, but that seems mostly symbolic at this point
Sowing the seeds of distrust in election results to try to have some claim to power if he loses? Authoritarian alert.
hypocritical given what happened in 2016
I have watched a lot of debates and this is NOT normal behavior by candidates even when they are behind in the polls. It's important given that presidents routinely and normally take on themselves the responsibility for assuring voters of the integrity of the electoral system, rather than discouraging them from voting.
It won't be the first time appropriations were spent for partisan purposes, so mostly normal. But the fact that they are doing this when so many people and businesses are suffering makes this important. And it's a lot of money.
This President places his own interests above his pledge to defend the Constitution. That's pretty abnormal and pretty important!
The fucking First Amendment, that's why.
Trump is not the first president to make a political joke that is in poor taste and to threaten to do something that has no basis in reality.
Protecting this country from spying by china is important, and fairly normal. In the grand scheme of things, WHY this president does anything must be questioned since I no longer trust his public rationale for doing anything.
A functioning postal service is a fundamental requirement of a functioning democracy. There's no question in mind that the delays are partisan, due to their timing.
These questions were incredibly skewed in an anti-Trump direction.  Was almost shameless.
Empirical testing of rational choice theories of democratic processes
I doubt few of them will, or even try to.
I don't believe the training works.  Bias remains.
It is an attempt to underrepresent areas where the incumbent party has lower support.
We know the President is not the most precise with his words, so did he mean to say stand down instead of stand-by? If not, it's ugly. If it was just his usual word salad, then it is not good but not as bad.
Every supplemental approps bill gets used for pork, irrelevant stuff, etc
He should have cited Mayor Daley's exhortation to vote early, often...
administrations do this all the time in both directions (issue more regs/halt regs in the works, etc)
This shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of civic/civil discourse.
When the President makes such a statement, we had moved from dog whistle to blatant intimidation.
The Pres. fails to distinguish between politics and governance.
Such statements undermine the legitimacy of elections and reveal ignorance of the electoral process. In addition, it ignores 1 of the key features of federalism, i.e. that, for better or worse, elections in the US are state functions.
Unsurprisingly, Pres. Trump displays his ignorance of governance.
This reveals both a disdain for the distinction between politics and governance and an ignorance of the vital function USPS plays outside of urban areas.
This is not abnormal for Trump, just for all previous Presidents.
He does not have the authority to do this.
Pres. Nixon or V-Pres. Agnew would have said the same thing in the same circumstances.
Empirical methods in American and Comparative politics.
Another incident in the totally inexcusable effort on the part of this administration to cast doubt on a bedrock of the democratic process and, hence, on the legitimacy of government itself.
Nothing more than posturing.  They have little if any real impact on government policy in these areas.
An example this president's lack of basic human empathy and scorn towards political opponents, this time the fake news media.
Such interference in private sector economic decisions is very unusually from a president.
A demonstration of this president's understanding of how federal funds are distributed, and of the executive branch's limitations in this area.
While it is within the president power to do so, an important democratic norm is being jeopardized.
The attention given to this was minimal, nor was it criticized extensively by the opposition party.
A strong statement by the legislative branch that election interference by the Russians did occur, and a strong rebuke to the president's continuing refusal to acknowledge as much.
Whether intentional or not, this is authoritarian rhetoric.
Maybe I heard this wrong -- I thought his suggestion was that people who had voted by mail should go to the polling place to see if their vote had been received.
Approving the aid was not abnormal; the delay between the hurricane and the approval of the aid was not normal at all.
It is shocking because of the complete change of position by the Republican Party between 2016 and 2020, but historically it is not so unusual.
He is endorsing violent racist intimidation of voting.
I expect there will be bloodshed in the aftermath of the election and Trump is fueling it.
He wants a corrupt judiciary to overturn an election.
The hypocritical deviation from 2016 is what makes this troubling.
Thank you for doing this essential work.
That a committee could make that finding is "normal"; that the collaboration took place is abnormal
Gender and race politics, electoral behavior, gender and presidency
Taken in isolation I'd say mostly normal; but in context of Garland, then probably borderline or mostly abnormal.
Legislative oversight of executives in parliaments
Thanks for doing this. It's useful to see what my colleagues think about these unusual times.
Is there anyone whose opinion was actually changed by Trump's behavior?  He was horrid, but then he is often (maybe typically) horrid.
Mostly a distraction as long as he is on this road alone.
The comment is inappropriate, but likely changes little.
There is wide agreement among experts that this is a little bit of a stunt that will likely be changed.............remembering that China is widely seen as an adversary.
Undercounts are a problem in the census, and this will likely undercount lower income people and people of color.
Vote early, vote often!  Some pigs are more equal than other pigs.
The U.S. aspires to be a democracy, or at least it used to!
A stupid and insensitive idea, but not abnormal.
The Secretary of State is the Secretary of State of the UNITED STATES, not the Republican Party!
Biden did something similar (although not quite to the same degree) to Paul Ryan in the 2012 VP debate.
This is very bad for democratic stability, since it seems to be done with the intention of provoking doubt in the validity of the election results.  It would be one thing to say that he would fight to make sure that every vote was counted properly, but to assert widespread fraud in the absence of any evidence at all is way outside the norm.
Only unusual due to the fact that it is happening during a pandemic.
Abnormal to the extent that it was aid that had been blocked for a long period of time, then approved shortly before an election.  Directing federal funds to important electoral constituencies (such as Puerto Ricans in Florida) is of course a time honored tradition.
Censuses have been major flashpoints in countries experiencing democratic instability/collapse because of their role in reallocating political power.  That hasn't been a major issue in the US.  The only analogous event that I'm aware of is the failure to reapportion the House in 1921, but even in that case I'm not aware of credible charges that the census itself was problematic.
This survey is vital in today's climate of eroding democratic norms in the US.
The executive orders were mostly a symbolic stunt to make the president appear more effective than he has actually been.
Part of a Trump administration pattern to cover-up Russian interference in U.S. elections.
By now a normal pattern of Trump making jokes designed to call into question democratic norms. It's troublesome, but there are far more problematic concerns.
Another dangerous attempt by Trump both to delegitimize the election and coerce marginalized people from casting their ballots.
Attorney-General intervening in election process on a partisan basis endangers the legitimacy of elections.
Urban & Race Politics, Public Policy, and Presidency
Unfortunately 40% or so of the population is likely to give some credence to this nonsense and in so doing diminishing trust further in politics and the political process.
Abridgment of normal non-partisan nature of the country’s intelligence agency is a dangerous precedent if allowed to stand.
For whatever reason, unacceptable threat with an upcoming election.
Again arbitrary use of power to punish people the President doesn’t consider worthy of assistance.
Talk is cheap, but any action to follow up would be outrageous.
That it was not punished and set a possible precedent for future abuses.
Promises to severely compromise the count of the overall population and minorities in particular with profound consequences for the distribution of government benefits for a decade to come.
Undermines democratic process and should be grounds for impeachment.
The scale for the last battery of questions on probabilities was confusing. Because it used a 100 point scale, I was inclined to think in percentages (i.e., "25% chance") , rather than following the text labels. I decided to ignore the numbers and focus on the labels.  For instance, "remote likelihood" means substantially lower than a 10% probability in my head.   Anyway, I would suggest exercising some caution in interpreting those numerical results.
It's a ridiculous statement, but seems likely to be ineffective, if state officials monitor who was mail-in ballots.
Warning sign of authoritarian impulses, which has been coupled with threat to ignore the results of the election. very alarming.
Again, attempt to invalidate election based on insignificant evidence.
I was unclear of whether you meant in person or virtual, given COVID-19.
Not abnormal for Trump, but highly abnormal for democratic debate. Civil discourse and the articulation of policy preferences is at the heart of citizens being able to make prudent choices about their candidates. He did the same thing to Hillary and the remnants of the GOP in 2016. This particular display was just the latest bullying.
He is sowing doubt - not only can he not imagine that he'd lose (or that he would have Russian support), but he needs an excuse (someone to blame) when things don't go his way. He is a terrible person.
Legislators stuffing pet projects into laws is not new. It should, however, be put under greater scrutiny for transparency purposes. It is a terrible practice, made worst by the fact that the aid is for a global pandemic, in which over 210K Americans have died, thousands more sickened, and livelihoods been ravaged.
Cancelling them outright is abnormal, but in the era of covid perhaps limiting exposure is wise. However, this appears to be just something that the Administration does.
Withholding funds is the important part - at that a significant part of the forested areas in California under threat are federal lands. He's a terrible person, really.
It depends on the reason for deployment...to make sure that all Americans who are eligible and present to vote while polls are open, fine. To intimidate or to interfere in the process of voting, not fine.
While the CDC technically falls into the purview of the Executive Branch, science has been largely apolitical, especially in times in which public health is at stake. It's more administrative creep in this inhuman administration.
The effort to investigate is good and normal. The collaboration and the evasion of justice is not normal. Regardless of the degree of normalcy, it is very important. Manafort is a traitor.
This is unacceptable and unconstitutional.
I totally missed this story in the news.
You proposed some nightmare scenarios that had not occurred to me. Thanks, survey!
What as abnormal was blocking Garland in 2016.
The "which states are more or less democratic" question is really hard and I struggled to give what I felt were well-reasoned answers.
Debate speech is more likely to be regarded as theatrical and cheap talk than other types of pronouncements.
Congressional oversight of the executive on security issues is fundamental to our separated powers system.
He didn't refuse to commit to a peaceful transition if he loses. That wasn't the question he was asked.
Normal does not mean good here. I am having trouble thinking about what I mean by normal. Normal for a democracy or normal for American democracy?
The first probability question, "Trump loses but refuses to concede" was hard to decide as I wasn't sure if I should answer P(Trump loses and refuse to concede) or P(Trump refuses to concede|Trump loses)
Politics of identity, political violence, democratization
Unclear where this would fall had the nomination of Garland not been blocked 9 months before 2016 election.
The desire to fill 9 justices is normal, the specific linking to settling election disputes in his favor is abnormal.
This is so so bad. The president sowing doubt about the election with no evidence and being completely wrong is one of the worst hits to democracy that we have seen since 2016
See previous comments about the President's disinformation campaign to sow distrust in the election.
There is nothing unconstitutional about this nomination - even if it is politically bad for the country
Elections, public opinion and voting behavior
I guess that I am surprised that the military is saying out loud what they used to say behind closed doors.
What I found scarier is the lack of public outcry.
Question of degrees here.  The executive should control the rule making authority.  The question is why they issued this injunction.
It is important to the people of Puerto Rico!  Not so important for whether our nation is a coded a democracy or not (the mere fact that Puerto Rico is not a state is probably a bigger deal).
Again, the executive office routinely provides editorial guidance for reports. The edit was pretty minor (e.g., not using the word "pediatric" to describe 18 year olds).   The problem here is that they are doing this to influence the election trumping scientific guidance.
The attack on the integrity of mail-in ballots during a pandemic is highly partisan and anti-democratic.
The President's unwillingness to unequivocally condemn far-right violence while overexaggerating the real (but not greater) threat from far-left violence is beyond political norms, very dangerous, and a tactic used broadly by authoritarian leaders.
This is another example of how law enforcement, and increasingly military, forces perceive the public as possible combatants in a war-like environment.
If the information is still provided, it is not that important (more about political strategy), but the threat of not providing information is problematic.
It is unimportant because it makes no sense. It is completely absurd and outrageous at the same time.
The importance comes from the targeted response to what is ultimately a legitimate geo-political concern about Chinese government surveillance. Given the importance of social media applications and the data that companies, regardless of where they are located, collect on consumers, it is strange to attack a widely used platform for communication instead of working through policy channels directly to impact the Chinese government.
The threat of withholding federal funds is important, especially if it were acted upon. The idea that the federal government uses a threat of loss of funding is normal and not that important as an issue.
It is abnormal in that this opportunity rarely ever occurs (this close to an election). It is important because of the impact it could have. It is not, however, outside of the realm of acceptable political strategy and is both legal and constitutional (if questionably ethical).
Abnormal due to COVID situation, doubt it would have happened otherwise
Voting, Elections, Public Opinion, Political Behavior
The budget has been crushed so this is more predictable, but still problematic
President Trump represents a threat to American democracy.
It is the type of hardball power politics usually not seen in healthy democracies.
We are seeing the DoJ becoming weaponized in real time, and the conflation of Trump’s interest as a private person with the interest of the Office of President itself. We might as well call him “ Dear Leader.”
Voting is a key mechanism to constrain power, insure democratic accountability, and generate legitimate consent of the governed. By undermining the legitimacy of the election, he lays the groundwork for civil unrest, seizure of power, and state failure.
It subverts the independence and legitimacy of the judiciary.
It may be a security threat; but the Trump Administration has not provided independent verification of that.
Politicization of bureaucracies undermines places that could/should be politically neutral, undermines expertise in policy-making.
Strategically spreads distrust in institutions, (tries to) use the violent levers of the state to maintain power
International political economy; East Asian politics
The abnormal was the Senate Republicans refusing to hold hearings for Merrick Garland.
While candidates often interrupt, Trump's actions were egregious.
I think I'm more offended by this than most. At minimum, there is the need to give the appearance of a separation between governing and campaigning.
I can see protestors being characterized as adversaries under certain conditions. Journalists are pivotal to democratic governance, and characterizing them as adversaries is appalling.
Normal because it's part of each party's pattern of promoting its own interests. Important because we have to know that this stuff is going on. Moving money in the pandemic? Come on!
Normal because that's the Pentagon's job: to protect the country against adversaries. It's also normal because armed forces have to dehumanize t enemy. It's very Important because the focus here is on domestic actors and the Pentagon is supposed to protect from outside threats. Secondly, it doesn't make sense to consider as protest something protected by the First Amendment.
This has the potential to inspire violent action at polling places or after the election.
Mostly normal for a Trump outburst.  Important because he is tarnishing the identity and role of the press, and this emboldens others to pursue reporters, too.
Abnormal for an administration to ban such a specific app. Semi-important: I don't use We Chat and I don't think it is very important for most US citizens.
Abnormal because it's clearly never been done before.  Important because it uses partisanship to staff the SC.  Important because it undermines the legitimacy of the Senate and Congress as a balance to the President, and because of the weakening of the institution of the Senate as more immune to the whims of the electorate.
Almost normal in that it makes sense to have police where there are large gatherings of people. This could be a terrorist target.  Important because we need to know Trump's motivations for this deployment, and we need to know the 'rules of engagement.' And we need to make sure that this does not inhibit people from exercising their duty to vote.
Normal Trumpist behavior, but abnormal for a sitting president to be so blatant about his pressuring of agencies.  Important because it shows us something about the Presidential mind-set regarding government, but also about how he regards science and expertise.
Glad you're continuing to do it - I use the data in class!
He is just trying to discourage people who would vote him out of office and setting the table for a legal challenge that he hopes the Supreme Court will support, regardless of the facts.
Another step toward fascism by attacking responsible and constitutionally protected opposition.
Packing to court for an unworthy challenge to his possible loss is something you'd expect from Putin, not an American president.
Attacking opponents to avoid responsibility for promoting climate disasters through deregulation and subsidization of fossil fuel use is terrible.
He is sowing seeds of fascism by labeling vulnerable populations as "other."
This is extremely intimidating to voters, particularly if the Proud Boys, a blatantly fascist group, also show up.
More fascist behavior--attacking science in order to secure election.
Law enforcement should not simply be a partisan pursuit.  Yet more fascism.
The Supreme Court does not decide elections.
Jokes like this should NOT be made by the President.
Federal funding for disaster relief should not be subject to partisanship.
It's disrespectful and over the top. But it happens at all debates, and it probably hurt Trump more than it hurt Biden. I don't think anyone is going to base their decision off of their responses at a debate, anyway.
This type of pork spending happens all the time. It's pathetic, a waste of our nation's resources, and completely out of place given the purpose of the legislation, but it's not like Congress hasn't done stuff like this before.
Several recent presidents have issued executive orders after Congress has failed to act, so this is nothing new. What's abnormal is that we've let it go on for so long, or that Congress still doesn't do its job.   It's important because the decisions do have real short-term consequences for the American public.
This is one of the most fundamentally important questions of the day. Our whole political structure is predicated on it. If he doesn't do it and we let him get away with it, then we may as well just abandon the Constitution and be done with it.
The president is singling out those who oppose him for unfair treatment. This should never be normal, and it's certainly important.
What the hell is WeChat?  The president banning anything - no matter how irrelevant to the lives of some people - is still abnormal and is still a big deal. Censorship
It's political blackmail. The job of the president is to execute the law for all people, and not just for those who support him.
Puerto Rico is a US territory, and it needs aid. It's unimportant to most people in the US, but I'm sure it's really important for the people of Puerto Rico.
Not being able to know about election-related threats is very dangerous for a democracy.
The executive muzzling agencies during a pandemic is very worrisome.
This is highly important for the two-state peace process, but probably doesn't affect governance here at home except to make it more beholden to corrupt foreign administrations (i.e. Bibi's Israel) or to domestic interest groups (i.e. evangelicals).
Political violence, political methodology, civil wars, social media and misinformation
Attempting to discredit the results of the election is the most alarming and undemocratic thing that President Trump has done.
Only in the rarest of circumstances should the Supreme Court ever be asked to adjudicate the results of an election. Even in 2000, the Court should not have intervened.
Impartial rule of law is a key democratic value.
The only problem is that, with Trump, it's all bluster, all the time. That he has no commitment to democracy is clear. But, will he tuck tail if the GOP refuses to back him, or when he gets laughed out of court? Probably. His base I have less faith in.
Partisan clandestine services? Totally normal in a democracy.
If another president did it, it would be worrisome. On the list of Trump's offenses, this is near the bottom.
This is tantamount to threatening people and property. Essentially, a president is holding people hostage.
Trump is allowed to do this under the Constitution, and Mitch McConnell can as well. It is not a good idea, nor very democratic. But it is constitutional. In this case, the problem is the constitution allowing such a practice.
Politicians often pressure bureaucrats to rule in their favor. Usually, the idea of 200,000 dead citizens stops them from doing something this fucking stupid and evil, though. Not this president.
Foreign interference in the elections is a big deal. However, I don't think internal polls are really all that valuable. Russia could have obtained the exact same data with their own pollster.
Keep up the good work. You know, provided Trump doesn't declare it illegal after nullifying the election results with the aid of the GOP in Congress.
It is the clear promotion and normalization of violence against the president's critics in promotion of a single-single party state.
Using public funds for something it is not specifically allocated for is both disingenuous and lacks an ethical foundation.
The president's ability to take action from an executive order is extremely limited. If he attempts to precede the law, this will become extremely important.
This attitude treats transparency as bad for the country. Authoritarianism masquerading as patriotism.
The lack of transparency only benefits authoritarian agendas, that only leads to reduced legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the people.
Again, more authoritarianism, which is leading to increased strife and violence directed towards people of color.
Using his office to assist the president's partisan campaign efforts is a federal crime.
International collaboration of right-wing extremism and authoritarianism.
This is democracy endangering language that attempts to delegitimize electoral institutions.
This is an indication that violence (including against the press by state actors) is an acceptable outcome of law and order activity.
This is close to former Argentine President Menem suggesting he needed (and deserved) his "own court". This is significant politicization of Supreme Court not just the nomination process, but court itself - and indicates a desire to pull the Court into partisan political controversies.
It is important on two levels - first on the level of changes to government services (some reform may be in order to the postal service ... so this is not necessary abnormal, but the nature and depth of the changes and the timing is abnormal). It is important because of the impact on service delivery during the pandemic (not only for voting but for many services that people rely on). It is also important simply for the role that the USPS has played historically in the consolidation of federal power and the formation and endurance of nation identity.
Further erosion of Hatch act and other norms
The government should not attack the electoral process
seems like an electoral inducement to FL voters, but of low importance given everything else that's going on
Obviously important; more hardball than the subversion of democratic norms
Subverting expert information for political gain, even when lives are at stake
Government is trying to weaken confidence in election outcomes if they don't favor Trump
Government crackdown on journalists is what we used to criticize other countries for doing.
Creates a culture that delegitimizes political opposition.  And when do the jokes stop being jokes?
Erodes public trust in government institutions
Some ambiguous questions. Failure to conceal latent bias of designers.
The stability/legitimacy of our entire democracy hinges on how citizens react to this.
He is preparing to outright steal the election if he loses.
Gross political maneuvering for his own future political career.
The Justice Department is becoming partisan and serving the needs of the president rather than the public. Dangerous precedent. Threatens the impartiality of the law.
An executive order signed because talks breakdown is a normal use of the executive order. The content of the executive order may or may not be extraordinary.
It is important because the President (or anyone) should not make such a comment. The importance gets impacted because the media (broadly defined) has acted like an opposition party rather than as a proper watchdog and producer of information. The one does not justify the other. But the context is missing from the question.
Politicians and office holders may use humor for different purposes. Given that he has made serious comments that suggest that he might not believe an electoral result in which he wins, the joke is more concerning.
The question is incomplete. Rules about what? When did it make this ban? Honestly, these questions seem a bit loaded. You can do better.
It is hard to say. Again, the comment appears to me to beg a certain answer. Blaming a state for problems limited to the state (particularly recurring problems) is not out of bounds. It is insensitive, and possibly inaccurate. Withholding federal funds depends on whether it is a complete withholding or if it is part of a bargaining approach.
The president has this power. John Marshall was a recess appointment. It is important only because of the reaction it is generating.
It is normal for officials to either make a risk seem greater or less than it is (rather than hitting the honest spot). It is important in the sense that it might increase risk to many. It is not as important in that it is not truly abnormal.
He is not the first cabinet minister to speak at a party convention.
The questions/comments are truly written for a specific audience.
This is incredibly troubling and abnormal.  Our democracy only functions like it's supposed to when elections are fair.  Issues with white supremacy and racism aside, this was an intentional threat to use voter intimidation tactics on election day - something we see in "competitive authoritarian" regimes.
This seems like business-as-usual for Congress.  If voters don't like it, they have electoral accountability mechanisms to voice their displeasure.
Alternation in power according to the specified rules is a hallmark of a democratic regime.
The executive intelligence agencies are legally bound to provide Congress with this sort of information.  Given ongoing concerns about election integrity in the United States, this is highly troubling.
This is the state of Presidential discourse, but driven by the President; normal for him, not necessarily for the country.
failure to marginalize white supremacy undermines democratic commitment to equality, and invites violence in support of anti-democratic principles.
undermining democratic process and the legitimacy of elections is not normal for functioning democracies.
Undermining democratic values and process is dangerous.
Politically inappropriate, in normal times, would be policed by his own party.
Ostensibly for national security, a legitimate presidential function; important because national security issues are important.
Infringes on speech; has eliminated training materials that (correctly) portray America's history on race, gender, equality as poor.
It's not the usual campaign tactic, but scaring your own voters while accusing the other side of your own practices is the usual way to mobilize them.
You think it's odd to Christmas-tree a bill?
what are executive orders except situations in which the President doesn't get his way in Congress?
usually they don't say so this way, but raising fears about what will happen to the country if a candidate loses is absolutely normal campaign practice.  Saying he won't necessarily concede is a little odd, but it's not the same as refusing to concede, and if he does nobody will enforce it.  Biden is right; federal officers are perfectly capable of escorting somebody out of any government building.
Being a reporter means taking risks.  They experience violence sometimes, because they willingly attend violent events, which by their violence provide dramatic stories.  I guess it's odd that President Trump isn't hypocritical about it, but his views of journalists are widely shared among elected politicians.
The federal government exists to hand out disaster relief. In the federal budget, thirteen billion is more than small change--but not a lot more.
He's a Republican.  We have two parties.  Historically they've taken turns being the overtly racist party.  We're in a phase where it's the Republicans' turn
In general law enforcement monitors polls; that's why there is so little fraud. Of course it's important to control electoral fraud.
Yes.  Political scientists lack a theory of democracy that is widely agreed and is even vaguely meritorious.  The questions on this survey reveal the woeful misunderstanding of what democracy is and how it operates.  Of course, survey research is itself part of the problem.  The notion that complex concepts and what people think about them can be reduced to a small set of countable answers or thermometer scores is, on brief contemplation, obviously deceptive.  What are you finding out?
Undermining electoral integrity has the potential to undermine turnout and faith in the system. It's also a judgment not at all science or fact based, further eroding trust in nonpartisan information.
He says the election may be fraudulent and then encourages voter fraud!
Undermining the legitimacy of dissent is a democratic problem. And this was just nonpartisan (they disallowed any political attire).
religion and politics, political participation, citizen behavior
It's not this SCOTUS nomination that is the problem...it was the refusal to hold hearings on Garland.
That does not follow the rules that were agreed on before the debate.  However, I doubt anyone is the least bit surprised.
Trump needs to read the Constitution and then maybe hire a Constitutional lawyer to explain it to him... in small words in terms a 1st grader would understand.  I hear former-President Obama was a good Constitutional lawyer.
As with every other President that has lost an election, he must commit to a peaceful transition of power.  A president is supposed to respond to the will of the people, not personal preference.
Now Congress doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes about elections.  Congress does not know what they are up against or how Trump plans to cheat.
Trump wants the Supreme Court to decide the election in his favor. No matter the results, he wants to remain in power, because as long as he is in power, he does not have to answer for his crimes. With a new young justice, who will be on the court for a while, then the far-right Christian Republicans will be able to overturn Roe v. Wade as well as same-sex marriage, and who knows what else over the next 40 years.
Not sure what he is blaming the wildfires for, and wildfires do not usually make their own decisions.  He is threatening to withhold funds because he doesn't want CA to vote against him.  And withholding funds is a good way to prevent that... not.
Again, this has never happened before.  I cannot think of a time where a current member of the President's cabinet has campaigned for the President during a convention.
This has never been an issue before this election. And the AG and President cannot tell the difference between mail-in and absentee ballots.
His executive orders were largely symbolic with little real action.
It is an attempt to demonize opposition and divide the country as opposed to unite it.
Shows a petty vengeful personality and also shows that all business is about political support for Trump.
Important for many reasons. It delays critical mail that and businesses lives depend on such as prescriptions and poultry. It is also an attempt to invalidate mail in votes which polling shows Democratic Party voters are more likely to use during this election cycle.
Just bolsters Trump's credentials as a racist.
The pure hypocrisy of the Senate majority to go along with the nomination.
Who care what Mike Pompeo has to say. He is a traitor to this country just like other Russian-cozy Trump cronies.
It is an attempt to curtail democratic representation.
American Foreign Poilicy, Middle East Politics, National Security
sadly, it's not the worst thing he has done.
this reflects his complete failure and autocratic desires.
I feel like I'm living in autocratic country after looking at my responses.
This is an obstruction to the rule of law.
The reliance on executive orders is not unique to the Trump administration. Although I think it is problematic, it is not necessarily abnormal.
Another demonstration of his racist, tyrannical instincts in "governing".
This sort of political move seems within the realm of normal.
One more effort on his part to undermine representative government. But this is a typical political move regarding the census so, sadly, not entirely abnormal in our history
The president of the US laying the groundwork to contest the election.
The President of the US advocating voter fraud is surreal
Meant as a joke? The man has no real sense of humor. Let's face it, he wants to do it, but know for now he cannot get away with it
We are becoming a banana republic less interested in good public policy than following the politics of importance to the current administration
In and of itself, this could be ok, but the raw politics and not policy are what is disturbing
the president is using politics instead of seeking to aid people in danger and who are suffering.
Wow, this has such profound impact on the lives of most of us
All presidents can swing policy in their direction. This was done on a whim of both blatant racism and because of a misguided electoral view
Important because it precludes actual debate over policy, and violates norms of civility.
Important because of recent political precedent (over Pres. Obama's stalled nomination in 2015) and because of the political sway of the court.
This was one of the preludes to the Nigerian civil war
Constant interruptions prevented any meaningful discussion of the important issues raised.  It was a prime example of bullying.
Yet another case of encouraging the far right to take violent action.
Prime example of illegal misallocation of funds.
These executive orders were largely meaningless and likely unconstitutional, done only for political purposes.
If there was a case to be made for national security violations by WeChat it was not effectively made by the administration.
After the Republican precedent established in 2016, the was the height of hypocrisy.  In the context of White House Covid-19 outbreak involving key senators it qualifies as reckless endangerment.
The suggestion that he was encouraging voter intimidation makes this illegal and dangerous.
We have one side undermining the credibility of our upcoming election, and the other undermining the credibility of the upcoming covid vaccine. Our politicians seemingly value winning political spats over promoting the good of the country. Egads!
So what's new about doing something like this, regardless of which party is involved?
To have a president attempting to delegitimize our electoral system and drive down participation is...breathtakingly bad. Treasonous. I won't say "unAmerican" since vote suppression is an American tradition.
International cooperation; migration; post-civil conflict peacebuilding
It makes sense for him to stay home during a pandemic. An while the White House is a symbolic government building, it is also his actual house.
Judicial process and contemporary political theory
Clearly illegal under Hatch act.  But because of Trump's other egregious conduct, this is not the top of the list for alarming developments.
Mitch McConnell helped to generate this deeply hypocritical situation.
Sliding scales are hard. I don't know how to differentiate between an estimate of 60% and 70%, for instance. So then I worry that my response is dictated by the emotions invoked by the wording of the question/prompt. Would rather 5-category response options. Also would be helpful to have an "I don't know" or "I disagree with the wording of the question" options.
Trump is teeing up a complaint that the election will necessarily be deemed fraudulent if he loses.   This risks undermining the whole election.
Mixing the campaign of an incumbent with the powers of the state is a sure sign of autocracy.
He wanted to appear to be doing something, but in the end did almost nothing.    This violates norms for being misleading rather than for being a bad idea if in fact he had been able to do something.
Too little and too late.   But a normal government would have not done all that much better.
Looks like US foreign policy is just part of a presidential campaign.  This was made worse by Pompeo openly selling private meetings with him for $10,000 as part of a political campaign.
Makes me realize that I'm even more pessimistic about a free and fair election in this country than I originally thought.   Once I walked through the likely scenarios for this election, I can see how rocky the road is ahead.   Yikes.
If the president was acting in his official capacity when he committed the alleged defamation I am not sure this is abnormal.
Only normal under the circumstances of the pandemic.
It was a joke made in the vein of "this guy is so unqualified for office, it ought to be illegal for him to serve."
I'm not totally familiar with the specifics but the government of the United States regulates most sectors fairly heavily, so this does not strike me as abnormal.
Lowers civic dialogue meant to inform voters.
Undermining both the media and the rights of peaceful protests, two essential parts of democracy.
We don't know enough about whether there are actual security threats.  The lack of transparency on what they may be makes this action questionable, especially given the President's attacks on China and trade with China.
A national government must help in emergencies, especially emergencies caused by climate change.  Moreover, most of the fires are on federal land, and the federal government is responsible for managing those lands, so his unscientific claim is not only false but, if it were true, points back to federal responsibility.
This is normal behavior -- that the amount isn't sufficient and that it is late and timed for the election is not particularly democratic.
Undermines the professionalism and credibility of an agency central to US health.  By extension, trust in other institutions is lowered.
Working with an international competitor that is already undermining our elections with disinformation campaigns and hacking of the other candidate.
Not terribly different from what the Justice Dept. did during the Clinton/Jones litigation.
A direct attempt to delegitimize elections
Presidents have made jokes like this before. Divorced from his other actions, this would be nothing, just bad taste or a failed attempt at humor. But...
Not allowing meaningful disagreement is inherently anti-democratic and supportive of the idea that the US is embracing more of an authoritarian philosophy.
Refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power is, again, anti-democratic.  It goes against the democratic norms and values we have embraced in the US and instead embraces the authoritarian strongman example Donald Trump seems to favor.
This is something that would be seen as completely normal if it were not for the statements from the Republican Party in light of Antonin Scalia's passing in 2016.  It is, indeed, the job of the President to nominate someone to fill the vacancy.  However, this process was rejected by the opposition party in 2016, but now embraced by that party in 2020.  The different standards based solely on party allegiance is what is abnormal and very concerning.
The level of importance of this type of claim is largely going to dependent on both the outcome and margin of victory of the presidential election.
This is a very real threat to democracy in the U.S.
It didn't fundamentally change anything, but it gave the guise of acting when it was beyond his capacity (especially regarding the payroll tax cut)
This is incredibly important. The U.S. system is based on norms and this clearly violates the most important norm of the system. Everyone should be very concerned.
Because of the lifetime appointment and previous Republican positions on this issue this is very abnormal. It shows how democracy built on informal precedent alone is problematic.
And what did the Democrats put in it?  What was all the pork in every other stimulus or omnibus bill?  This has been common for decades.
Again, this isn't just a Trump thing.  The use of executive orders has been creeping up for the past century.  Does anybody remember FDR?
It should be noted that a number of other pundits and politicians have suggested delaying about everything else in society because of the pandemic.  There are governors that single-handedly, with not legislative approval, have been making dictates with the force of law that delay people participating in all sorts of regular civil society activities.  The stage for all of this was set broadly back in March.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle have been calling for boycotts of businesses for decades.  The state was set for this broadly dating back to at least the 1980s.  This is not unusual.  Anybody not seeing that is a partisan hack and not a social scientist.
The information on this disease and response has been so fucking politicized that the quality of information is basically pure noise now.  And that is not the fault of one particular party or set of individuals.
This is very biased against Republicans.
Needs a 'no response' option for the question about selecting two best and two worst states.
The debate is not crucial to democracy but the display of uncivil behavior going beyond the agreed upon limits was seen as negative enough by some voters to grow his unfavorable ratings in the polls.
Business as usual in the midst of a pandemic is an abdication of responsibility to govern with care for the general welfare.
Trump's refusal of commitment to a peaceful transition of power strikes at the very notion of democracy.
This cancellation, really a refusal to appear and explain policy and practice, strikes last the oversight function of Congress.
This endangers the health and welfare of the American people.
Ethnic politics has been with the republic since its early days. This, however, complicates US relations with the Arab states.
Another publicity stunt that appears to offer much needed help to people, without actually following through. It looks like a bait and switch effort to buy support
The release of aid money itself is normal - timing the aid release with the election is less normal, particularly as the hurricane was 3 years ago. Particularly in the context of other actions by the administration, this looks a lot like badly needed aid was held up until a politically opportune moment for the president. That said, I'm not sure how important it is to the election given the volume of news stories surrounding this election and this administration - I don't know that this particular aid release is likely to move the needle much. It is more significant as further erosion of norms of governance, but even there it comes on the heels of too much else to have a lot of individual significance.
I assumed that for the rate the likelihood questions, I was rating the overall likelihood rather than likelihood of x given y (e.g. I rated the likelihood of both a Biden popular vote victory and electoral vote loss + the likelihood that Biden would attempt to overturn such a loss, rather than the likelihood of the latter given the former)
lots of terms I hadn't heard before.  Would like a "don't know" option as would have chosen it in many cases.
Trump's behavior at the debate was a travesty and an embarrassment to the country. I have never seen such a bullying performance in a debate. It is important to note that Trump's bullying prevented him from pinpointing weaknesses in Biden's arguments, so the American people were denied a reasonable presentation of strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates' arguments.
This is certainly abnormal, as is the leaking by members of Congress of information disseminated during those briefings.
I have not followed this story and hence cannot really comment on this one.
Normally, presidents will not deny funds to states based on political differences, which is clearly what President Trump has done in this case. However, it is also the case that, while climate change no doubt has a strong effect on fires in California, it is also California's own forest management and environmental policies that have made fires worse. It would not be rare for a president to use funds to pressure a state to change its policies, but it is highly abnormal to threaten to deny a state the funds it needs to overcome a disaster.
The CDC has been (and should be) permitted to issue guidance with a minimum of political pressure.
Public opinion, voting behavior, legislative politics, public policy
That presidential debates have become less civil and substantive is a given, but the degree to which President Trump's performance advanced these unfortunate trends is well outside of normal limits.
The president is openly giving license to a militia group to act violently and apparently in the President's name.
Undermining the integrity and calling into question the legitimacy of a future election is fundamentally ademocratic and dangerous.  It may suppress votes.  It may further lower faith and trust in governance and government institutions and certainly give him and those who support him fodder to dispute an election in which he loses and, given the state of tension and the multiple crises we are facing, this poses the potential for actual violence to ensue, no matter what the results.
American citizens are not enemies or objects of urban or counter-terrorism tactics, nor should they be dehumanized enough to make this acceptable to service member who might be put into a position of facing protestors.
Congressional oversight in this area is critical and this is an outrageous abuse of executive power.
It is callous and inflammatory rhetoric, but of less impact than the use of force against peaceful protestors, which was the situation that the journalist was rightfully covering
That this could be done under Senate procedure is undeniable, it can.  However, the hypocrisy and unseemliness of a purely partisan power grab that shatters, not just advances the slow erosion of norms is a sign of the critical failure of the soft guardrails of democracy, at least in the Senate.  It also completely ignores the sentiments of the American electorate.
Science and not partisanship should be the ultimate arbitor of public safety, no matter the cost to the economy, inconvenience or hardship imposed on families, or poor outcomes for educational achievement for students. It is reckless malpractice.
Democratic Erosion, civic engagement and representation of under-represented groups
Hard to know for sure how he will respond if he loses the vote, but this kind of statement appears to be setting up some fundamentally destructive actions
Because I think this one is unlikely to be taken seriously
Only "mostly" because this is one of those threats DJT probably won't follow up on
Only "mostly" abnormal because one can envision a very different president suggesting this for very different reasons
Because it is tied to a broader goal of restricting citizenship rights  and redrawing b boundaires to favor more Republican areas
The height of incompetent leadership. Completely unpresidential: bullying, rude, disrespectful, unbecoming the office
Further erodes trust in government and undermining democracy
Efforts to manipulate the process for personal gain
The height of incompetent leadership. Politicizing for personal gain.
Cronyism. Using government resources to support current administration.
Normal under "normal" circumstances. Unethical under republican "promises" from previous circumstances. Just adds to mistrust in government for personal gain.
Normal in the sense that it falls in line with this President’s perceptions.
This calls into question the entire legitimacy of the electoral process with no evidence. Assuming Biden wins, this will mean a sizeable (?) portion of U.S. citizens will believe that Democrats are not legitimate presidents. Obama because of the birth certificate controversy and Biden because Trump claimed election rigging. This may lead to states openly defying federal orders and we continue on our way to civil war.
I suppose I don't really know how abnormal it is. Perhaps other presidents were better at hiding undue influence on agencies. It is incredibly surprising though.
Continued murder of black people by police without any consequences also has implications for democracy. An effort to repeal the 14th amendment to get rid of birth right citizenship because people are concerned about Mexican "anchor babies" also has implications for democracy. I hope those issues were surveyed and I just missed them.  Just trying to be helpful but there is a typo in this sentence. Next, still thinking about the performance of democracy at the state level, we'd like please name the ...  "We'd like please" It's always so hard to catch these things before going live! I would want to know.
I don't see this as an important issue for US quality of democracy, although I think it's important geo-politically
It would have been totally normal before one party set a precedent that the legislature would block such appointments!
Very impressive and well thought through!
For a President to appear in the 21st century not to clearly condemn white supreamacist, and appear to condone election viglante violence is exraordinary in the posr-civil rights era. Since I assume Trump is an anolmay, I judge this to be of passing importance.
I have not followed this development, and I not sure about its importance..
This is clearly an abuse of presidential authority, but Trump is not likely to carry out the threat.
This is a serious threat to the only constitutionally mandated means of mass communication,and given the likely widespread use of mail ballots, a threat to to the integrity of the election.
The aid at this time is likely part of the campaign's effort to attract Latino voters, especially in Florida.
This is within presidential discretion, likely to be be changed by the next President, and I judge these programs to be of marginal value.
Given the polarization of the polity and the Court, I see this as likely normal in abnormal times.
This appears to be partisan behavior on the part of the AG-not unprecedented-but a bit unsettling.
African American Politics, the US Presidency
A serious danger to democracy, particularly taken together with his statements that he is not committed to leaving office if he loses.
Significant deviation from norm that public officials should assume responsibility for protecting public health.
Like other presidents, Trump is using executive orders for show rather than to accomplish actual policy objectives.
Presidents make improper jokes; it is unwise to pay undue attention to them.
Another threat to the integrity of democracy, not only because it undermines a basic public service, but also because it is directly related to the administration's willingness to interfere with election administration.
The diversity training did have ideological bias in some cases.  The president was right to be concerned, much as I dislike his reflexive support for police misconduct.
The president has made a number of ominous statements to the effect that he will only accept the outcome of the presidential vote if he wins.  This idea, taken together with his repeated accusations against the integrity of mail-in ballots, is highly dangerous to democracy.
The census is a domain which should remain free of ideology and politics--along with science, public health, the tax system, etc.
Thank you for pursuing this line of inquiry.
Vitally important in part because of the trend toward disrespect of freedom of the press & freedom to assemble and protest vs the govt
I keep thinking there cannot be more worrying signs and then there are. This is deeply, deeply concerning; voluntarily relinquishing power in the event of losing an election is one of those core definitional elements of democracy
I'm terrified. I live in a small rural town where people are shooting out windows if you have signs in your yard for democratic candidates, so the prospect of incitement to violence has already happened, as far as I'm concerned. I've lived in the Middle East and in conflict zones and I've never felt the intuition of the security dilemma like I have in the last month as I watched people in my community openly inquiring on social media about where to buy accessories for their ARs.
Other presidents have taken similar actions on other issues.
The described action is a departure from expert-driven policy making in a field where that has been the norm for quite a long time.
A moral failing but not necessarily a legal one.  Unbelievable irresponsibility for someone occupying a position of public trust but sadly not very surprising.
An assault on one of the few affirmative policy and public service obligations of the national government written into the 1787 constitution.
Obviously, this was done in the past to intimidate Black voters.  In this environment, it may have the salutary effect of reducing violent assaults on voters and voting by white nationalist militias.  I'd rather vote with federal marshals watching the polls than Proud Boys.
Brazen violation of the Hatch Act.  Indict him.
Intersection of political theory and policy analysis
The approval is not intrinsically problematic, but the delay between disaster and aid, and the proximity of the election, make this somewhat suspect.
Voters need to be able to hear both sides of an issue without interruption.
He contradicts his claim to be a law and order president by encouraging law breaking (voting more than once).
Threats to elections are common in authoritarian polities.
A free press is characteristic of a free society. Trump clearly disagrees.
US National Security; Public Administration; Political Philosophy
Subnational Democracy and political institutions
Sorry, I'm not familiar with this story.
It actually seems pretty normal for elected officials to pressure bureaucrats into messaging that is favorable to their interests.
For what it's worth, I assigned probabilities of 10% for the various Election Day scenarios based on the current polling showing Biden pretty safely ahead. I think it's a certainty that Trump will dispute the election results if (when) he loses. And I think there would be a high probability of state or Congressional Republicans attempting to dispute the counting of mail-in ballots, etc, if it's close enough to be plausible. Maybe they will regardless and I'm being too optimistic, but it seems harder to pull off if all the big network decisions desks are saying that Biden is winning comfortably.
Im still not convinced that the President has the power to enact an executive order concerning taxes.
If this was any other year id say this was questionable not not necessarily important.
The wildfires in California can be directly linked to climate change which the President has denied, he consistently tries to limit the ability of the California government to make environmental laws and regulations, which at the very least is contradictory. The withholding of funds makes no sense in the face of natural disasters.
If this had happened in any other year, where there was not a pandemic or an election that made mail in voting so necessary I would say that these are normal growing pains of an agency implementing change. But it is 2020 and implementing the changes at this time was ridiculous and seemed politically motivated, even if it wasn't.
The Census is mandated by the constitution and is extremely important to states where it concerns funding and resources. The fact the the census is taking place during a pandemic makes it more difficult to get accurate numbers since census workers are not able to perform their jobs like usual. The fact that the President is trying to end the census instead of extending the date smells very fishy.
This undermines faith in our entire election system.
no precedent for prez trying to delegitimate the elections.
HHS harnessed to amplify prez's message that pandemic is well taken care of.
amazing hint that he will go to court to adjudicate an election
important cause of its effects.  normal cause it's the way we do it.
the doj and at should not be partisan tools in an election. with this they are.
comparative judicial politics in Latin America
At a different time I would have said this was normal; but six weeks before the election after a very long delay, this looks like crass effort to steer vote in Florida.
Yet another in what is now unfortunately a long list of actions by Barr that show a strong and stable pattern of using resources of DOJ to not only protect president but also advance conspiratorial ideas and undermine confidence in election.
They are the lifeblood of our democracy and need to be respected as such.
Problematic under any circumstances, we are in the middle of a global pandemic . . . .
Donald Trump has only one agenda and that is to divide the nation for his own edification.
Knowing he cannot win legitimately, he is using intimidation tactics to try and suppress turn out. There is no evidence of fraud that justifies such moves.
Using foreign policy as a partisan football is never a good idea. It gets soldiers killed and resources squandered for things that are not in the "national interest."
Barr is a highly corrupted lap dog for the president. He should lose his law license for any of a number of unethical acts.
This is significant due to the effect the changes are expected to have on the speed of mail delivery, which is crucial during an election where most people will be voting by mail in many states.
I think this is a norm violation but do not think it has long term consequences
Presidents usually do not get this involved in the Census and try to change the count so that their political party has more power.
This event was just electioneering bluster.  It did not reflect policy.
That this use of funds for purposes they were not intended is mostly normal is a sad statement on the integrity of the legislative process.
Sadly, our government has always labeled those that disagree with it as adversaries.
This is a first step towards dictatorship.  Peaceful and orderly transition of power is the absolute hallmark of a democracy.
Although we have separation of powers, the legislative branch depends upon information flows from the executive branch.  Without this information, Congress cannot fulfill its constitutional obligations
Dog-whistles have long been apart of racial politics in the U.S. This is just another example of the double-standard placed on right-wing extremist groups
Intermixing of governmental buildings and party politics sets a dangerous precedent
Making suggestions of postponing a regularly scheduled election, even if made as a "joke", is highly problematic
Using federal assistance during an emergency as a bargaining chip is a powerful example of a shallow leader.
It's a matter of institutional power that the Republicans are able to do this. While I think it's objectionable so close to an election, it's generally allowable under the rules. It is important, however, as it will solidify a conservative court.
Clearly attempting to lessen the impact of immigrant families on reapportionment and funding formulas.
Interruptions have been getting more common (was frequently noted in 2012 debates, for example), but the total inability of moderator to control the first 20 minutes or so of this last debate was definitely abnormal, as were the personal attacks on Biden's son.
Attempt of an executive leader to undermine the legitimacy of his own country's election system -- the same system he won under last time.
I wasn't aware of this, but it sounds like typical omnibus-bill Christmas-tree approach.
Looks like an executive's attempts to seize legislative power, but there's not a lot of substance in the orders; they are mostly for show (e.g., few employers have stopped withholding payroll taxes).
We saw something like this under the Bush Administration, where administration reps were appointed to oversee (and restrain) rulemaking in various agencies.
I would have judged the likelihood of some of the post-election nightmare scenarios higher, if the election were much closer than it seems to be.
Redirection of funds is slimy, but not out of the ordinary
This is one of the longer term declines in American democracy; it is not unique to this president, but has larger concerns about balance of power and executive constraint.
A key element of democracies is the peaceful transition of power.  Without this, you cannot have a democracy.
Declines in trust and efficacy of government and bureaucracy.   Potentially attempts to affect election results and election trust.  Possibly of the greatest concern.
Interference in politically neutral agencies is a major concern that reduces trust.  Not the first time, but rarely as salient
Hard to evaluate the peaceful transition question, since its a threat at the moment and hasn't happened.  I expect a lot of error on that question.
electoral politics and applied public policy
Disastrous for democracy; clearly designed to delegitimize the process in order to annul the electoral results
Ominous indicator of the politicization of basic state institutions
You are asking the right questions.  I'm terrified of where this is headed.
The US Commander in Chief is not the commander of white supremacist illegal militias.
Active attempts at voter suppression by a US president are outrageous.
This violates a long-standing norm, and hence is of some importance.  It seems to have made no political difference in terms of the 2020 campaign and the election, and hence has had no impact.
Active voter suppression by the US Attorney General violates long-standing norms and is an outrage.
abnormal, but we're in abnormal times -- no chance of accepting in normal way, at a convention.
hard to answer. normal to approve aid. not normal to wait so long and then approve it just before the election.
Even if a tactic to through Biden off, it meant that the debate could not serve the purposes intended.
Like others, I fear for his acceptance of a negative election result.
He is sowing doubt about a voting method he employs and that has proven to have high integrity -- but who listens to scientific data these day?
I disagree but I can see other presidents saying this.
This kind of legislation is used frequently for other purposes.
US military is to defend the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
Undercutting a constitutional mandate to count every person undercuts democratic accountability of executive branch and further politicizes demographics.
Incumbent presidents have always capitalized on the symbols of office, but Trump’s approach to that was over-the-top and quite likely, illegal —
Same as earlier comments about preparing the groin for post-election manipulations —
Same as before — the point was to introduce confusion to be capitalized upon after the election —
A rare outbreak of sanity and compassion...?  Nope.
Voter intimidation, particularly of minorities —
That was done as a pretext for making trouble after Nov 3 —
It is a genuinely valuable project and I hope it will (a) continue and (b) get more public attention—
This was completely out of line and is a substantial threat to domestic peace and security.
This course was over communications security (Comsec) and was intended to point out how careless behavior regarding even unclassified information can be exploited to discern information that is important to operational security.  Journalists regularly engage in this, fully aware that they are risking OPSEC, in pursuit of advancing their own personal careers. Thus, they should be included in the group of potential threats, although the term "adversaries" is unnecessarily provocative.
Open intelligence briefings are theater rather than being of importance.  Many congressmen and women who make huge shows in open hearings don't even bother to attend closed briefings - thereby indicating their lack of seriousness.
This statement has no context.  Was the reported sitting in a press conference in the Rose Garden or was he/she covering riots in the streets?
Trump banned diversity training based on critical theory.  I think this question is misleading as it suggests Trump banned all diversity training due to some bigotry rather than due to his rejection of the highly controversial critical theory that effectively promotes bigotry.
Ideally CDC should be non-partisan; exposing it to political pressure of this sort is a dangerous over-step by political authorities.
I thought some of the "Events" lacked context, so that they resulted in biased presentation.  If I say "A white man puts chains on an unarmed black man and kills him" and then ask if that is normal, without noting that the white man was a prison guard and the unarmed black man was a convicted murdered on death row who is being led to the execution chamber where the "killing him" is a judicially mandated administration of a lethal injection, then I have provided a flawed question.
EOs do not have the force and scope of legislation.
Free and fair elections are fundamental to democracy. This suggestion by the President cuts to the heart of democracy.
Its not the federal governments business to be meddling in the presidents personal affairs. This is personally important to me both the action and the substance, but in the grand scheme of things this ranks low on the abuses of power this administration has undertaken.
Banning all Briefings would be highly abnormal. it makes sense in light of COVID19
Institutions and Democracy in Latin America
This is disturbing on two levels.  First, it is a violation of electoral laws in every state to attempt to cast more than one ballot in a single election.  Second, the Federal Government is barred from conducting elections by the Constitution.  To have a sitting President suggest voters cast multiple ballots not only violates the limits of federal interference in state elections, it demonstrates contempt for the rule of law by the President himself.
The Federal Government is barred by the Constitution from conducting elections, although in the interest of determining the composition of electors in states to choose the President and vice-President, Congress determines when electors shall be chosen and when they shall meet to cast their ballots, which shall be uniform among the several states.  The President, although he has a stake in the outcome, is constitutionally separated from the electoral college composition, and separated from the management or conduct of elections. The Executive may have the power of the force of the United States, but he must not have the power of the will of the United States.
As Machiavelli stated in _The Prince_, one may exert power through the laws or through force, or else through force and fraud.  However, it is of paramount importance to understand the difference between laws and force, and between the laws and fraud.  To conflate any of these puts one on the road to tyranny described in Xenophon's _Hiero_.
Health agencies issuing new regulations are typically a result of specific empirical data collected to guide operational implementation of public health policy.  A political appointment such as a Cabinet Secretary is responsible for the management of strategic, not operational components of public health.  Blanket bans on health agencies modifying operational components of health policy undermines the necessity of policy compartmentalization.
The Postmaster General is a political appointment, and as such is responsible for the management of the strategic components of public policy.  Measures that cause delays in the operational mission of the USPS demonstrates a failure of necessary policy ladder compartmentalization.
The approval of aid to a US Territory is not abnormal; the timing, on the other hand is.  Puerto Rico, as a territory of the United States, should have received sufficient disaster relief when it was needed most, after Hurricane Maria devastated the Territory.  Waiting until the General Election approached to provide aid to a US Territory affected by a natural disaster demonstrates a cynical view of public assistance that would even blanch Machiavelli, who said that "a Wise Prince must think of a mode in which the people will have always need of the state, and of him, and they will always be loyal."  Withholding necessary aid out of contempt for the territory will necessarily generate hatred and revolt.
The Secretary of of State, if overseas, is engaged in the discharge of official duties of the office of Secretary, and not as a political activist. Engaging in Campaign activities while on duty is a violation of the Hatch Act of 1934. A sitting Secretary of State speaking to a political party convention from a location overseas in which he is actively engaged in diplomacy demonstrates contempt for the rule of law.
This action constitutes an interference in a state's conduct of elections.  The US Attorney General is not authorized to inform members of the Federal Government about investigations related to allegations of election irregularities within any state. The Constitution is explicit in its reservation of the power to conduct elections to states.  Disclosure of federal investigations into a state's conduct of elections constitutes a conflict of interest, since the US Attorney General is a political appointment, whose continuance in office may be directly influenced by the outcome of said election.
Foundations of Political Theory, Normative and Formal Political Theory, American Constitutional foundations, Indigenous Politics
The items in this survey suggest a variation in the methodological approach from previous surveys, possibly exposing its results and comparative trend analysis to impeachment by critics.
Lays the foundation for election violence and other violence surrounding the outcome.
undermines the legitimacy of the court, which is already shaky on elections issues after the 2000 election and its unwillness to address gerrymandering
Important in the context of the election
Undermines the legitimacy of the court and the hypocrisy provides incentive for later packing the court by democrats.
By itself the nomination is normal, but in the context of the Gorsech nomination by Obama, the current nomination takes on different meaning.
Cannot think of any other US President who would have uttered such a statement.
There has never been truly effective oversight of intelligence, though this makes it that much worse.
Trump being Trump -- there is something like this every day.
Reflective of the Trump Administration's heedlessness of the regulatory role.
Shockingly late, following extreme neglect.
Demagogic treatment of a complex and important issue -- counterproductive even if one is critical of how diversity training is actually performed.
Reflective of the peculiarity of this administration's disdain for professionalism at all levels.
Overblown significance, but still corrupt and unseemly.
International and comparative public law
Not supposed to use the resources of the office for such a purpose, and while President not covered by the Hatch Act, s/he ought to abide by the same rules as govern other public officials.
Part of undermining faith in democracy is undermining the press
SCOTUS functions decently the way it is.  There is no reason to ante-up in anticipation of election challenges--except when you want to make sure the election is contested (and at the federal level, too!)
Trying to win at any costs is a way to undermine democracy.  The stupid rule the Republicans invented to avoid holding hearings on Garland in 2016 should apply equally this year.  Of course letting a president nominate (and holding hearings on an appointee) in an election year has happened several times before, but this is clearly undermining any sense of the court's legitimacy
See remarks about Hatch Act above.  Not supposed to be electioneering while engaged in a diplomatic mission
Well, he was convicted, so the system sort of worked.  But that a high-ranked campaign official did this is unhealthy and abnormal
COVID has posed challenges for completing the 2020 Census.  An accurate count is essential for allocation of resources and for redistricting.
Barr is acting at the behest of the president.  States establish the rules for mail-in ballots and most are quite secure.  If the post office is making sure they don't get delivered to Board of Elections in time, that's another problem!
American political development, con law, elections
This sucks and it's a lot of money to siphon off in the midst of a pandemic, but Congress has always used its power of the purse to fund the pet projects of members.
American citizens are not the adversaries of the United States military. Period.  Neither are journalists.  The exercise of constitutional rights—to speech, to protest, to petition the government, to a free press—does not turn citizens and journalists into foes of the United States, its government, or its military.  Describing citizens and journalists as adversaries suggests a very worrisome effort to drive a wedge between service members and their fellow Americans. This is intolerable in a democratic society.
The ways in which administration officials brief members of Congress are subject to change and this is not a per se problem. And COVID-19 could provide a quasi-plausible rationale for limiting in-person briefings, but I'm not aware that COVID-19 has been asserted as the rationale. The asserted rationale is, as I understand, a fear of leaks.   It's far more plausible that the  DNI has canceled in-person briefings as a way to prevent members of Congress from asking questions and receiving quick answers to them; in essence, to limit congressional oversight of election security in the middle of a presidential election campaign that has already seen attempts by foreign government to disrupt and destabilize.
This is deeply weird, but it's also not a thing President Trump can do.
Completely normal for a president to want to fill as many seats as possible in the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court. What makes it borderline, is President Trump's emphasis on the need for 9 justices to HANDLE ELECTION DISPUTES. It is not normal for elections to need resolution through the courts. President Trump is explicitly stating that he believes the 2020 election will be decided by SCOTUS--which, by itself, is a highly abnormal statement.
No president has ever sought attempted to fill a new vacancy on the Supreme Court in the midst of a presidential election. In fairness, there's never been a new vacancy on the Supreme Court this close to election day.  It's not abnormal for a president to try to place as many judges/justices on the federal courts as possible during his (and one day her) time in office and, standing alone, President Trump's attempt to fill the vacancy left by Justice Ginsburg's death would be abnormal in the sense of unusual, but not abnormal in the sense of dangerous. But here Trump has stated openly that SCOTUS needs 9 members to resolve the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.  It is highly abnormal for a president to anticipate election litigation IN ADVANCE OF THE ELECTION.  The vast, vast majority of all elections never see the inside of a courtroom. Here Trump's actions can be reasonably seen not only as an attempt to forge a clear conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court (which is fair game, as a general rule) but also to install a justice he anticipates will rule in his favor should litigation over the 2020 presidential election reach SCOTUS. That is, he's trying to rig the referees. I categorize this as mostly important rather than important only because Judge Barrett, should she be elevated to SCOTUS, will still retain a mind of her own.
If mail-in ballots have no claim to secrecy, then a cornerstone of free and fair elections—the secret ballot—has crumbled. Barr's inquiry into 9 mishandled ballots presages the administration's likely attempt to undermine the validity of the upcoming elections by challenging the legality of a huge swath of mail-in ballots.   Given the centrality of free and fair elections to an democracy, Barr's actions must be seen as important.
This is the most egregious attack on democracy of those listed so far. It is absolutely appalling.
This is on a par with threatening to delay the election. Outrageous.
Worry about fraud has been expressed before.  It goes to important because it is one part of a wider effort to pre-discredit the results.
Because he is trying to rig the election by affecting turnout.  Especially when taken together with his new postmaster-general's activities.
Especially in a context where he is actively encouraging white supremacists and other white militia groups to go out and watch polling places and engage in other intimadations.
Out of Trump this is not a joke; it is letting his authoritarian streak show.
There are reasonable questions about how far companies can maintain dress codes if they do not have one specifying a uniform for their employees.  There are also reasonable questions about whether some forms of clothing or accessories (like personally-chosen hats) might be regarded by other employees as a way of marginalizing them in the workplace on the basis of some demographic characteristic.
Though there are times when agencies should be told to hit "pause" on regulatory processes, this particular order is directed at a time and in a way that refers to an area of health regulation where politics is overriding science.  That is not good.
Adds to the confusion about how to cope with coronavirus.  There are some decent arguments about how schools can reopen -- something that both kids and parents need -- but these are not those arguments.
Dog whistle for a certain constituency but will anger another that is about equal in size so balances out.  More evidence of not caring about established practices tho.
The President appeared to be either deranged or trying to disrupt any effort at a serious debate about the issues (or  both!).
This could serve as a pretext for refusing to honor the outcome of the vote, the most fundamental abuse of democratic practice.
This has never happened in the past, and there is no reason that the pandemic should disrupt the timing of the election when world wars and other major events have not done so in the past. This would set a dangerous precedent on manipulatng the election process for partisan advantage.
This is the behavior of a potential authoritarian dictator that has no place in a democratic system. Even authoritarian states try to manage leadership longevity either by conducting fraudulent elections (e.g., Belarus) or by changing election laws (e.g., Russia). This position puts Trump in the same category as the likes of Putin or Lukashenko or even worse!
He made the opposite argument four years ago when he was elected while there were only 8 justices on the court. Although in one sense it is normal tp have the sitting president nominate a candidate when there is a vacancy, Senator McConnell so disrupted that tradition four years ago and set a new precedent that, though inappropriate, needs to be countered because it is so blatantly political in nature with no legal or ethical justification.
Presidents are supposed to provide disaster aid to states regardless of their political orientation; this was clearly an effort to punish a strongly Democratic state whose leaders have criticized the president for his management of the COVID-19 pandemic, his policies on racial justice, among others.
Presidential decisions like this are often a normal prerogative of the position, but this is a clear effort to reduce respect and influence for racial and ethnic minorities in American political life. Although perhaps formally "normal," it also reflects the president's underlying racism.
This too is a political decision rather than one based on the rule of law; it is clear that the portion of the populace most difficult to participate in the census tends to live in states and cities that predominantly vote for Democrats. Given the nature of US federalism in Senate representation and in the Electoral College, this is a blatant political effort to give his party and nondemocratic advantage.
International negotiations and conflict resolution
Not surprisingly the questions are now suggesting even more serious threats to democratic process, but that is consistent with the way politics is moving in the US, especially during the current year.
Here the wording is precise, though it might be better to say "its wildfires." Were Trump blaming California for fires in Montana, that would be totally bizarre.
There are a variety of relevant circumstances. E.g., if the delay would make delivery far more reliable, or far less costly (without sacrificing much speed). Here, as elsewhere, I am disappointed by the lazy wording of the question. You seem to envision specific phenomena--e.g., the recent mail delays that could easily impact the election--but the wording is general.
As previously indicated, I think many questions are too vague and invite the reader to make assumptions. I would also deny that it qualifies as "brief." The percentage questions in the final section were impressively sharp, fortunately.
undermines legitimacy of the election with no evidence.
we expect military to defend our political system.  Freedom of press is fundamental to that.
The signals it sends to the public are troubling for the legitimacy of the election.
If he was joking, we can quibble with his sense of humor, but it lessens the importance of this.
entangles foreign policy in partisan politics.
campaign staff sharing information with foreign countries is problematic.
There was an error in one of the questions. I think it was supposed to say "we're asking you to..." or something like that.
Virulent racist. Can't bring himself to criticize hate mongers
On the list of his abuses, this is so small
I do not think he really meant this, but given his other statements, it is important.
Smacks of dictatorship and undermines legitimacy
How stupid is this? Playing to the base and stoking fear
Political Economy of developing countries
The "outside the US" question doesn't really work. You need to have an option to enter in the country where I currently am and then pipe that forward in the survey.
The debate is not an act of governance, so is not critically important. The president is the face of the nation however and typically presents the nation in a positive light. This was a mockery of the nation.
Having an elected official sow distrust in the electoral system undermines democracy. The system is built upon trust and these actions undermine the entire democratic system
Using the office of president to campaign for reelection has traditionally been taboo, but it is just a norm. This violation of norms is among the least severe. It is a very grey area where the separation between valid governance and campaign behavior resides.
This is what presidents do. In the absence of congressional action, presidents act unless constrained.
It has never happened before and there is no valid reason why a country not-at-war and mostly functioning can not hold a democratic election.
Electoral democracy requires that people have free access to the polls. Law enforcement officials add no security to the process of voting but seek to deter people from voting. This is banana-republic level stuff.
This is a violation of norms, which in itself is not damning. But it is part of a pattern of norm violations, making it just one in a series of events that reduces traditional norms of democracy in the US
Collaboration between a member of a presidential campaign and a foreign nation violates domestic sovereignty and invites foreign interference
politicizing the health system is deadly
its not the worst thing he's done but it's more suppression
Presidents use EA when Congress fails to deliver
One problem I see with these questions is that there are multiple dimensions that could be judged normal or abnormal. It is normal that wrongdoing is exposed, which is why I responded as I did, but highly abnormal that this sort of wrongdoing occur. Hopefully these comments will help you sort this out during the interpretation process.
Probabilities of some of the possible events listed are hard to assess since many of them presume certain kinds of election results.
Typical pork politics to divert money from a public need to a pet project.  Typical...but not good.
We are only one step away from Trump murdering citizens.  We are so close and yet so many Americans, including academics and the media, cannot see that we are on the ledge and it will only take a small push to send our democracy falling to be dashed on the rocks.
Stifling of government agencies in a political manner is an authoritarian playbook
The courts are now just playthings for the executive to use in politics.  Our entire system of an independent judiciary is being exposed as a lie.  Executive dominance of the judiciary is straight out of the authoritarian playbook.
Again, playing politics with government agencies is the authoritarian playbook
Trump's government is full of third rate losers and Manchurian Candidates.  Our democracy is being sold out by a New York golden spoon carpet bagger and opportunistic thieves.  Our democracy is a sham.
May God help us all...we are going to need it.  The 2016 election was our 1932 Reichstag election...we just didn't know it.  The 2020 election will turn into a farce.  Our democracy is fatally wounded and the legal mess from Nov 3rd on will expose that our democracy has been dying for a long time.  The will of the people is meaningless in American politics.  There will be street violence and Trump will be able to use the Justice Department and the militias to steal the election and bully his opponents.  Blood will be shed and our democracy will be declared dead.  After that, people like you and me will lose our jobs as Trump declares his opponents to be enemies of the state (like Erdogan did).
While it's close to an election, other administrations might also seek confirmation. The real problem is that Republicans used the 2016 election as an excuse for not confirming a previous justice, and this comes across as totally hypocritical.
I can't believe the President survived impeachment.
Such statements often occur in immature democracies upon the verge of breakdown.
Ideally, Pentagon training would not have a focus on domestic issues.
on the scale of what else is going on...
This is a ploy taken by authoritarians everywhere. I know of no president or presidential candidate in the U.S. who ever said such a thing. This is complete disrespect for our electoral processes.
Under existing law and putting aside the obviously vile motives behind such a request, Trump is basically telling his supporters to commit voter fraud for which they would be criminally charged.
Again, assuming it is a joke (no safe assumption on this can be made), it violates a fundamental tenet of liberal constitutionalism, namely the peaceful turnover of office. Because this tenet is so fundamental and, especially, because this president has called an unfavorable electoral outcome into doubt, it takes on an importance that a "joke" otherwise would not have.
It is abnormal for presidents to interfere with internal company regulations that are subject either to contractual terms with its employees or judicial or administrative hearings. However, since the president's call is unenforceable, the relevance here is mostly symbolic. It does, however, reflect further abuses of the office and its norms by this president.
The President's comments are a bit like a Rohrschach blot. Everything has to do with the context. By calling the legitimacy of the election outcome into question, he has created great suspicions, likely justified, around the need for 9 justices before the election to deal with electoral litigation.
This is normal. Aid packages for catastrophic events are routine as, unfortunately, the catastrophic events themselves seem to be.
Under the VRA, some electoral districts were under potential legal enforcement because of low turnout or past discrimination. So, that part was not unusual. However, actively using law enforcement to monitor the poll places is, especially given the extent to which Trump claims falsely that voting fraud will take place. This is the behavior of an authoritarian.
What Manafort did was an invitation to the Russian authorities to intervene in our election or to further intervene in our election. That is a crime. And, frankly, so was Trump's request for Russia to turn over the Clinton emails.
It was the way in which it was discussed, as with the way that the forces were deployed outside of routine and legal processes.
Violation of the law and promoting individual businesses
This relates to democracy only because these measures were shown to be connected to making vote by mail more complicated.
It's abnormal because the CDC gave it, and felt they had to do so.
shows high ranking government official ignoring both the law and the procedures he approved for his department.
no joke - evidence of a sociopath/authoritarian personality
In Trump world this event hardly causes a radar blip
This would have been mostly or completely normal if not for the highly abnormal failure to consider the Merrick Garland nomination; in that context, ignoring the "precedent" from four years ago makes the Barrett nomination an illegitimate power grab that may alter the shape of the court and perceptions of it for the long-term.
The importance of this event, and others like it, will be determined by how successful it is in allowing Republicans to steal the election through the courts and through acquiescence of Republican election officials and other elites. It may amount to very little, or it may amount to everything.
Who can say whether this is "normal" anymore?  4 years ago, a new norm was apparently adopted with regard to SC nominations, but this norm is already being broken.
Social Contract Thought, American Political Thought, Liberalism
Ancient Greek, Feminist, and Democratic Theory
Again, undermines faith in govt institutions at both federal and state level
Thwarts necessary cooperation between Congress and the Executive branch to carry out our national security.
President continues his dysfunctional relationship with press
The irony is that the isdue is poor federal land management.
Public health should and must be free of political influence.
Public policy, government organization and lobbying
Debates are political performances, not serious discussions of policy. That has always been true, in my estimation. What we see provides evidence of the candidates' character and the most recent presidential debate reveals that our current president is interested only in obfuscation and self-aggrandizement.
Hadn't heard about this either. I hate doing the BLW surveys because they force me to confront all the abhorrent policies of this administration at once.
This is, without a doubt, the most troubling and threatening aspect of the upcoming elections. Peaceful transfer of power is essential to democratic stability.
I had not heard about this. Where do I start?
The president's effort to nominate a new SC justice and the GOP-dominated Senate's effort to rush that nominee through the confirmation process in the weeks prior to the election is an example of political/constitutional hardball. I'm not convinced Democratic actors would behave differently--but these moves threaten to undermine the SC as an institution.
The prospect for violence to occur at the polls is deeply troubling. US polling places have been violence free for many, many decades. The president's "suggestion" that law enforcement may be necessary abets the view that violence is expected and considered to be likely. The only correct response here is to oppose political violence in the strongest terms possible.
So many things trouble me about the Trump Administration but one of them is the perception among Trump's supporters of a millenarian sense that Trump is anointed by a Christian God. Pompeo speaking from Jerusalem strikes me as intended to underscore this interpretation--as well as to affirm the beliefs some Christians appear to hold that Jerusalem will be returned to Christians.  I can't believe I'm writing this--it makes me sound like a crazy person.
The USG should make every effort to encourage everyone to participate in the census. This has not happened.
He's creating needless fear and sewing doubt in what should be a system citizens can comfortably rely upon, particularly during a pandemic, especially when he is actually the sitting president (who could seemingly do alot of things to prevent the election from being rigged).
All president's seek to "manage" the press, and the relationship with the media can be quite adversarial - that's not a bad thing for democracy if disagreements are based on substantive issues. Trump has taken this to a qualitatively different level in calling journalists "enemies of the people" and effectively encouraging his followers to threaten members of the media. He's also set a terrible example in his "friendships" with some of the most egregious violators of human rights and open and free press around the world.
This was predictably petty, but does capture his authoritarian impulse to attack any and all unfavorable media and degrade the office of the president.
He's not just corrupt and narcissistic, he's also genuinely stupid.
Petty, foolish, and needlessly picking a fight...
Norm violation is "normal" with the administration.
Barr is the most nakedly political AG we've ever seen and is arguably the most dangerous member of the Trump administration.
That election day/aftermath section is making me more nervous than I was before the survey...
This lends support to white supremacists groups and vigilantism and shifts public norms regarding racist ideas.
It reflects a politicization of disaster relief, and even the potential to move FBI headquarters for the personal benefit of Trump.
Peaceful transitions are a cornerstone of democracy
As with the Proud Boys comment, it represents a significant step backwards in the country's struggle to deal with a history of racism and current racial tensions.
It is manipulating experts and scientists for partisan political gain, and will likely undermine public trust in government experts.
It suggests the ability to chill the availability of various platforms of expression.
The voting process in federal elections should be nationalize, as one same/singular process for all states under the Federal Elections Commission.  Must cease using processes that vary by state for the election of US President
Congress has the power of the purse.  The federal budget process and its function in policy making is completely broken
this would not occur if the procedure for voting in federal elections were nationalized (centralized and regulated under a singular standard process)
There was a grammatical error in one of the introductory paragraphs on one of the pages.
Why did Biden not double down on the incitement of violence here? This was a blatant, real-time example, and a huge missed opportunity.
This may be wishful thinking on his part, but still abnormal and consequential. We should not normalize irregular political transitions.
Again, wishful thinking for the most part, but petty and hyper-partisan.
The administration continually hypes voting insecurity while promoting voter intimidation and impeding access to voting.
The system seems to be working in this case - Trump's margin in polls dropped by about 2 points after he did this
I like the questions about individual states. Arguably, there is not a single answer to whether the US as a whole is democratic.
Political institutions and political parties
It is annoying, and evidence of how you Trump never keeps his word, but it is not antidemocratice
Core rules of the game are not changeable, especially by political whim
Our system of checks and balances requires that members of congress be informed
We need a professional civil service that is unimpeded by political appointees
I have faith that he won't succeed.  Threatening is unusual, but it is mainly hardball politics
This is simply shocking to see a president suborn domestic violence and terrorism in support of his own personal political power. And the white supremacy is simply unacceptable in any way, shape or form. I don't think we have seen this kind of public advocacy of White Supremacy at the highest levels since 1924.
It is bad to be in a government building but it is the pandemic.
This is what Hitler did--democratically elected, declared himself Fuhrer.    That is what Trump wishes he could do.   Just sayin'
It is the pandemic and as long as he provides a written briefing, the important work still gets done.  (although of course q &a may not but a great deal of that is performative for TV anyway)
This is voter intimidation and voter suppression full stop. And this is precisely the kind of things that has now made us a banana republic.
This undermines public health directly as well as undermines public trust in public health officials on other matters as well and risks the lives of many citizens.
THis is treason, full stop and in a past time, he would have been shot at dawn without a  blindfold. And in my opinion,he still should be.
THis undermines one of the most important bedrocks of democracy: free elections.   It undermines faith in the our electoral system without evidence.  My understanding is that these 9 ballots were the result of a new and poorly trained worker and it was immediately rectified.
This survey is really well done and you are doing a great service by conducting it regularly. I, and everyone I know, is really terrified about this election and the degree of voter suppression and intimidation as well as the threat of violence if Trump doesn't get his way.     I do think you should add an anonymous question about how many people want Trump to die of the virus, or at least stay very sick for a very long time. Even among very liberal people, I suspect the number is super high.
The president should not be able to use the DoJ as his personal lawyers
For the Pentagon to have an adversarial relationship with protesters and journalists is certainly not ideal, but hardly surprising
It was McConnell's decision to not confirm a new Supreme Court justice in 2016 that was abnormal.  What's abnormal about Trump's decision is the rushed confirmation process, not the nomination itself.
This training socializes security forces to disregard the bill of rights.
Suggests intelligence are not accountable to the legislature.
Likely to lead to unnecessary death and illness during a pandemic.
I don't have a sense of the usual scale of aid. The announcement timing was probably political but that's usual for presidents.
Past confirmation processes during my lifetime have involved extensive vetting, hearings, etc. and there isn't enough time to do this between when the vacancy arose and the election.  It heightens the politicization of the courts.
Bad for foreign policy and diplomacy but not entirely unusual.
Undermining the Census undermines fair representation (constituent element of democracy) and fair, effective governance and also makes it very difficult to draw good descriptive inferences.
Guessing the authors don't like Trump. I don't either. Wishing there were more questions about potential norm violations from Democrats, as these will happen in a norm violation spiral (eg Abrams refusal to concede, etc).
Since World War II, presidents have questioned specific voting procedures in very narrow ways. Nixon had concerns about Texas and Illinois.  Democratic president mostly claim "fraud" when votes are not counted.  But Trump's blatant attack on elections is so transparently aimed at sabotaging a result against him, that it is truly dangerous to the overall health of presidential elections.  Very dangerous.
Along with rejecting outcome if he loses, this sets the stage for dangerous times as votes get counted after Nov 3.
Unprecedented.  Lincoln was advised to do this during the Civil War and did not. Trump is reckless at breaking an essential norm.
Congress can get information via other routes
The importance has been overblown, though it may impact a good number of votes. We still do not know how much the mail changes were motivated to interfere in vote counting.  That "gap" impacts the importance.  Directly trying to slow the mail is highly unusual.
Just another bit of norm breaking. Trump seems to not understand that states and counties run elections.  USG would not have jurisdiction
The national government never had much of a stake in the exact count; it is normally state governments who wish to get the Census to act, but in ways to raise their count.
presidency, human rights, public service
The thermoter of how likely events are is problematic.  So much depends on how close the election is.  If Biden wins by 6% or more, then there will be little appetite to challenge election results as it will be moot by overwhelming EC victory for Biden.  No state GOP legislature will try to overturn popular vote unless it can determine the outcome of the election.   So I wish you had two scenarios: close election & not close election.  I would have given very different odds.  My answer was based roughly on current polling with a bit of "tightening", leaving Biden with 5%+ win in popular vote and easily winning EC vote
It is hard to distinguish political manipulation for economic necessity
There's little that's more important in a democracy than a peaceful transition of power that reflects election results.
international security; US foreign policy
Terrible violation of norms. Subjects his own staff to violations of the Hatch Act, which is also more of a norm than a rule. It uses government property, influence, etc. to campaign which can only increase the incumbency advantage.
Head of agencies have the power to veto all rules, though most don't do it so obviously. Not unusual near the end of an admin for new rules to stall because of an expectation of a new administration. However, during a public health crisis?
Since the motivations of the move are mostly unclear and could also negatively impact supporters of the party that implemented them (older, rural), it's hard to assess the real impact on democracy.
Foreign interference in domestic elections.
Your focus is too much on Trump.  Trump does not define democracy in America.
The survey is not objective. For the most part, it equates the actions of a single man with the state of American democracy.  That's highly problematic.
The debates are theater and generally do not inform anyone. Trump is known as a maverick and behaved as expected.
This is important because the president has only obliquely condemned white supremacy and this country has a significant problem with racism. This is important because the president is going against the recommendations and warnings of his own FBI director. This is important because the president is stoking the fires of these right-wing groups with symbolic language. It all matters, it is all abnormal and it is scary.
He is undercutting the legitimacy of the electoral process. The only non-fraudulent result he will accept is one where he wins. It is utter nonsense and highly damaging to the system. Again, he is stoking fires and I do not believe we will get through this next election without violence.
The president is weighing in on a situation where a company has a policy that limits political expression. What makes the situation uncomfortable or abnormal is that the expression is connected to support for him as a candidate rather than support for free expression overall.
First, the President is not following science. Second, he is stoking division and threatening a state during a time of crisis.
Presidents have a history of trying to control the news cycle and the flow of information.
Misallocation of legislatively-sanctioned funds undermines faith in the democratic process.
National security considerations might justify such a move but only under truly extenuating and demonstrable circumstances.
While it is optimal to have all seats filled for important decisions, the haste to do so and the motivation (anticipating a challenge to the elections results) are indecent.
I was asked "Now using the same 0 to 100 scale as previously, how would you rate the political system of Outside the United States?"
have y'all been watching the news for 4 years.  this is the trump way
anyone who remembers 2000, or understands the concept of a tie realises this.
PR is a US territory, this is what you do.
It is not abnormal for money for one overarching purpose to go to seemingly unconnected or thinly connected projects.  Still, this example seems a bit egregious.
I have never heard of such a thing, and this puts many voters who trust the president in risk of inadvertently committing a crime.
The chief executive is encouraging violence against a member of a group he has deemed "The Enemy of the People."  This is atrocious and dangerous.
It was a joke, but it can be hard to tell the line with this president.
I'm not sure what to make of this.  If a company bans political advertising that seems normal.  If it is targeting the MAGA gear, then I'm not sure a Democratic president would act differently in a similar situation.  Calls for political boycotts by prominent politicians is not particularly new.
Candidates should respect each other, and show that they do so.
Absentee voting is not fraudulent.  It serves as a respected feature of our democratic system.
The Justice Department, at least before the current administration, has operated at arm's length from the President.
A president should not get personally involved in situations like this one.
Presidents should stand in solidarity with the states.  They should offer states federal assistance, not criticism, in times of crisis
Americans should celebrate the fact that theirs is one of the world's most diverse countries.
This is improper for a Secretary of State.
Mail-in ballots are as safe as others.  No one should impugn the legitimacy of  absentee voting.
No, except thank you for asking me to participate.
Incredibly dangerous rhetoric coming from the president based on no real evidence. He's trying to undermine the election.
Using the the White House as a political backdrop for the campaign is not normal.
The suggestion that his supporters should break the law and stuff the ballot box is terrible.
This is due to climate change -- not "sweeping the floors" of the forest. The president holds a grudge against CA and uses this to punish those in power in the state (all the detriment of the people who live there).
Unbelievable what this administration is doing right now.
The president and his administration are actively trying to undermine the legitimacy of the election to stay in power. Their strategy is all about creating the perception of fraud where there isn't any legitimate fraud.
Thank you for doing this important work.
Ask Gretchen Witmer. The right wing is fomenting terrorist conspiracies.
Accountability and information sharing are crucial.
Free press is essential to democratic politics. It is scaandalous that we need to say that in the face of government abuse.
The PO is a constitutional creation that has been charged with communication functions aimed at promoting democracy and commerce. It is meant to be a SERVICE (like the military, for instance) and NOT a business.
The politicization of the judicial nomination process is alarming.
Accepting the outcomes of free and fair elections is a hallmark of democracy. Trump has presented no evidence that mail ballots are invalid.
Congress has a constitutional responsibility to engage in oversight of the executive branch. Cutting off information between the branches hinders this responsibility.
Government control of the economy and free speech rights are in-line with democratic principles when such regulations or restrictions are in the broad public interest, public health, or general safety of citizens.
In democracies, elections are not decided in courts. When courts get involved with determining election outcomes, it undermines their legitimacy. Moreover, if particular partisan appointments are "required" for courts to adjudicate any legal matter, it disturbs the independence of the judiciary.
Withholding state aid for what appears to be a political or retributive purpose violates the principles of equal protection found in the US 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.
An accurate census count has significant implications for representation and partisan balance of power in the US Congress. Any steps to undermine the accuracy or validity of the process undermines democratic representation.
Thank you for doing this important work!
It's important because it's electorally-motivated and intended to weaken the USPS for the private sector's postal vultures.
He's banning truth-telling about the past and present of white supremacy and various forms of past and present oppression. Much of what my colleagues study and teach would be prohibited from being shared formally in federal agencies. That's astounding and unnerving. When will the bonfires of books begin?
Thank for the survey. One reason I participate is to express my deep disgust at what's going on in the USA, which is happening MAINLY because a plurality of white citizens have lost their damn minds.
empty bluster discounted by (almost) all
Southeast Asia, anarchism, agrarian history
I hope you're going to press before the election with some results that might make some small difference.
This question is unclear -- does it refer to executive actions regarding covid as an alternate to actions coordinated with/through Congress and the stimulus plan?
American constitutional thought and development
I would like to hope that the President misspoke in his actual phrasing, but he clearly wasn't willing to say anything like what any normal president would say in a situation like that: "I--and everyone in my administration--will do whatever we can whenever we can to fight racism in any form in the country. Groups like the Proudboys have no place in a democratic society."
There wasn't much to the orders, and they didn't push the envelope on making far-reaching law in the absence of Congress. And this is a legimate national emergency. DACA under President Obama, or President Trump's building "the wall" are much more problematic from a democratic perspective.
Efforts to dehumanize legitimate civil society opposition comes right out of the dictator's handbook.
It wasn't just the action, but the fact that it applied to the chamber Democrats have won via a democratic election. For Congress to do its job, it has to be able to engage in executive oversight, but the current president is refusing to abide by norms and arguably the law on this point.
Unpresidential and not effective, but consumer boycotts of this type are regularly called for by high-level politicians.
The historical context of this action and the president's other comments indicated that this is meant to intimate voters.
The line between taxpayer-supported governance and governance is supposed to be bright. Moreover, each of these political events has involved many non-political-appointed employees being put to work on political activites.
Latin American politics; gender and politics
Very sad day in America when you are surveying political scientists about this kind of behavior in our own country.
They usually did these at conventions. Before conventions, they'd do it other ways. During a pandemic, it makes sense to do it in a place with maximum electoral impact outside of a venue where one may catch or spread the disease (some good this did him?)
Trump loves doing shtick, and this was pure shtick. All presidents do schtick, but Trump's is just dumber than most.
It's only important once he starts locking them up in jail like Adams and Wilson did.
In the recent past, we haven't had problems with handovers, but elections like those in 1800 and 1876 are tough to beat, even for Trump. It wasn't great that he said it, but please.
This is the first I've heard of it, but we see this kind of stuff all the time in politics.
This is only important in that it's an appeal to get Barrett through before the election, which he rightly thinks will help his chances at winning reelection. My guess is that Trump is thinking of the 2000 election, in which SCOTUS had to rule on issues of the recount. He probably has no idea that if the EC doesn't resolve the presidential election that the vote is thrown the House.
It is extremely normal for presidents, especially GOP candidates, appeal to law and order policies.
It's only important because it's meant to reach out to the GOP base. No one even remembers this happened.
This survey felt a little too influenced by Twitter.
I wonder why we aren’t asked about if events are good or bad for democracy on top of whether they are normal and important...
Research demonstrates that the debates don't really change anyone's minds, but helps to solidify their predisposition towards the candidates. Trump's behavior is rude and discourteous, but that is his basic personality type. Everyone expects that he will behave like an asshole, and he doesn't disappoint.
This is an important example of how the US has become an illiberal democracy/elective dictatorship, where there is little respect for 1st Amendment rights.
The fires have mostly taken place on federal, not state, lands. Trump's position is an abdication of responsibility. These lands used to be maintained by California Indians from time immemorial. Genocidal state and federal policies have prevented the traditional maintenance of these forests for more than 170 years. Give the land back to Native people.
It is abnormal to politicize the postal service. It is very important because it may have an impact on the perceived legitimacy of the election results.
Approving disaster relief aid is normal for any president. It is an important duty.
It is abnormal for a president to want to micro-manage the kind of training personnel would get. It is important because it is a white supremacist dog whistle.
Politicizing a pandemic is extremely abnormal, and lethal to citizens. Infectious diseases are not partisan political issues.
Unfortunately, the Attorney General position in the United States has become overtly partisan over the past several decades. While this example demonstrates behavior that is not good, and unethical, it's sadly par for the course.
Public Administration and American Indian Studies
This is exactly what they're not supposed to do! They're the nation's attorneys, not his personal legal counsel!
Semi-important because Trump breaks so many laws/norms, it's hard to say this is the most important
It's important given the context of mail-in voting, which the president has worked (falsely) to discredit
Yet another effort to delegitimize the vote
Again, a three-week front page scandal in any other administration, here, it's not even the lead story
No evidence it works so could reasonably question use of government funds on this.
Found confusing switching back and forth from evaluating things that might happen in the more distant post-election future as opposed to surrounding this immediate election. Need to label endpoints of all scales.
I think it's a problem to be publicly ecouraging voting fraud, but think that it's actually hard to vote twice, so likely on one will be able to do it
very interesting - those lists events and possibilities are frightening
Literal and metaphorical message in this statement suggests a non-regulated militia may be summoned when needed by the president.
There is so much wrong with this claim that I prefer to simply state that this is the language of an undemocratic ruler, not a leader selected through democratic processes.
Congressional oversight is undermined by lack of cooperation, especially since these tasks have a history of being non-partisan since the legislation that created the directorship was passed.
Presidents advocating violence against any citizen or resident not engaged themselves in violence is undemocratic and violates the very rule of law supposedly maintained through police actions like this one.
it could provide a foundation for illegitimate actions to prevent the peaceful transition of governmental power, but probably not, and so not as urgent as prior statements.
Until we know whether there is a connection between the sharing and specifics activities by Russian agents, this is alarming but not as important as prior statements or actions.
Presidency, executive politics, campaigns and elections
I am so concerned, I have investigated my options for dual citizenship status with at least three countries of my ancestors.
No authority to delay, but creates confusion for those who do not understand voting right and the regulation of elections,
Stunning to send these messages to citizens and to the larger world community.
Questioning the legitimacy of elections is serious attack on a core democratic institution
An extremely dangerous policy of turning the apolitical military, the hallmark and strength of American political institution, into a praetorian guard
Violates the institutional foundation of democracy
While the Chinese connection of the app is concerning, banning is a counterproductive policy
The Statement undermines the legitimacy of the SCOTU and political institutions more generally
While personally and professionally skeptical of the utility of these training in achieving their desired goals, they represent pragmatic, not ideal, tools to combat institutional racism
Very useful in advancing knowledge and understanding of the institutional fragility of American democracy, something few scholars, especially Americanists, have been reluctant to confront in their work.  The N=1 bias of Americanists is the singular cause of this problem, replicating the problems of area studies in predicting the collapse of the communism and the Arab Spring, as well as the Third Wave of democratization.
It is a breach of the rules laid down by the non-partisan commission on presidential debates.
A serious breach of civilian supremacy over the military and crosses the line that forbids political involvement by the military.
The officials are accountable to Congress and Congress can demnd information form the executive branch to enable them to legislate properly.
It is indicative a president wilfully ignorant of the law.
Calling for the punishment of a private company is inappropriate for a president.
It is a violation of the First Amendment
Constitutionally, he can nominate a justice for any reason even political advantage
The USPS is a public corporation that must act in accordance with its charter that dictates that it not act in a partisan manner
An effort to prevent competition for the nearby Trump hotel and an improper reallocation of government funds.
Another example of Trump's attempt to politicize everything and everywhere.
Part of Trump's offensive against China, in which he has occasionally overreached.
Pompeo was speaking as a government (not a party) official on an official mission from a foreign capital in what was clearly an attempt to win votes for the administration's transfer of its embassy to Jerusalem.
Manafort clearly used his position to gain financial advantages in Russia.  Had Mueller been more forthright, he would have found that the Trump election campaign colluded with Russia.
A blatant attempt to undermine confidence in the outcome of the election as well as plainly false.
urban politics and American political development
it is disgraceful that the justice department is playing personal lawyer... but I have come to expect no better in this administration
this seems mostly a play to the base... i hope.
he has no sense of humor so i doubt it was a joke.  more like a trial ballon
he doesn't care about california.  But i think the optics look bad to many outside the state.  could come back to bite him a bit.
No president has ever targeted his opponent's physical weakness, which in the case of Joe Biden is his tendency to stutter. Trump interrupted intentionally, to exacerbate the stutter and make Biden sound less competent. This is not normal -- American presidential candidates have always mustered at least a baseline of decency and dignity, and this overt bullying falls far short -- and its a sign that Trump has no accountability, and I fear it normalizes the behavior, leading our political discourse into a dark time.
The US government isn't the tool of the guy who occupies the Oval office, yet its taking sides against a US citizen (whose taxes support DOJ) in a private matter that involves the president. Trump has weaponized DOJ to protect him at all costs, even for stuff he did before taking office. He thinks he is a dictator.
He is actively undermining the election results, which is unheard of for a president of a country that values the right to vote.
Its seeding the soil for a violent crackdown befitting authoritarian leaders. The right to protest and of freedom of the press are constitutionally guaranteed.  This suggests that the executive branch holds the Bill of Rights in low regard.
It normalizes authoritarianism. No prior president would joke about behaving like a dictator and taking away the people's right to participate in the electoral process that hundreds of thousands of us have fought to protect.
A US citizen involved with the Trump campaign collaborating with Russian assets to help the president subverts the free will of the American people. This is unprecedented and is definitely not a habit that should be continued
The attorney general of the US (not the president's lawyer) is giving the president select, inaccurate information that feeds his desire to delegitimize our election. And the fact that no one bats an eye suggests he will continue to politicize law enforcement to further the president's personal needs.
Public opinion and religion and politics
He is abusing state resources to aid his reelection. Classic move in electoral authoritarian regimes.
Capturing the referees is of course the crucial first step in autocratization. He knows he will lose the vote, so he wants to challenge it in court and have his judges hand it to him.
It is unusual to do it so near an election. Unsurprising though.
He is trying to suppress the vote as he knows he can't win fairly.
The WH is not a partisan place and to use it to promote one party--to have it synonymous with a specific party--raises risks.  Plus the whole COVID issue makes getting that many people together a problem.
A president calling on people to commit a crime?  The very attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the elections--a foundation of the democratic process--by POTUS is astonishing and is a threat to the stability of our system.
Given COVID and the fact that other countries (e.g., New Zealand) have delayed elections, it is not completely abnormal. The problem, of course, is that the POTUS did not seem to realize he lacks that power.
A president using his office to punish a company for its position on pro-POTUS attire is problematic.  It's important because it could easily encourage behaviors by businesses to curry favor with the president in ways that are irrelevant to what they produce.  Presidents picking 'good' or 'bad' companies creates a ripeness for corruption and economic inefficiency.
In light of the increased emphasis on mail-in ballots this year, slowing the mail is extremely important and has--obviously--created a partisan fight over the post office which has been a nonpartisan issue.    Its effects are important as it may disenfranchise voters who are seeking to avoid contact and it raises more need for and therefore questions about the permissibility of drop-off boxes and the like.
It is normal in the sense that PR needed the assistance.  Of course, it needed it three years ago.    What makes it abnormal is the timing and the blatant attempt to use this aid as an election ploy.
Diversity training goes back decades and, given the attempt over those decades to attract employees that are more diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender, this is abnormal.  Moreover, as part of Trump's universe of statements, it is one more suggestion that only white experiences are valued.
International Security/ civil wars and insurgencies
This is encouraging post-election violence.
Trump is delegitimating the upcoming election without any proof of fraud within the use of mail in ballots.
Nothing else matters when compared to the need for the peaceful transition of power in a democracy.
Although I don't like President Trump, Mitch McConnell, or the nominee, presidents should be able to nominate whomever they choose, whenever they choose.
Interrruptions are normal; my sense was that the scale and quality of Trump's was not. This seems tied to the broader erosion of democratic norms to me.
I'm torn. Using executive action when talks with Congress break down seems like a standard gambit in recent Presidencies. But the context of this particular breakdown is BONKERS.
Political violence and conflict; methods
The question on whether Russian interference, specifically, will lead to breakdowns on election day was a bit double-barrelled and hard to parse. Will there be breakdowns? Very likely. Will Russia be the source, or main source, of those breakdowns? Separate question, hard to say.
HHS is politicizing the government response to a deadly pandemic.  It is morally indefensible and criminally negligent.
Blatant effort to manipulate the vote.  Borderline criminal.
Pushing through a Supreme Court nominee in the closing days of a campaign is not that outrageous.  What was borderline criminal was blocking Obama's nominee (Merrick Garland) for eight months, not giving him a hearing, and to even refuse to meet with him.  The Rep Senate essentially stole a SC seat.  Even though the Senate rules allowed for this, it was a violation of the informal rules and norms that are needed for the smooth operation of US govt institutions.
Securing the ballot and ensuring public safety are legitimate ends.  Trumps comments and intention, however, have everything to do with intimidating voters and suppressing turnout, which are not legitimate ends.
Manipulation of mail in ballots is a non-issue.  Barr's efforts are simply a means of undermining the integrity of the vote, and to cloud voters understanding of what is actually happening in the country.
Religion and Politics, American Foreign Policy in the Middle East
Reduces the efficacy of the debate process. Also breaks rules previously agreed upon by both candidates.
This destroys an established norm and could introduce bias into the election.
Elected officials need to behave in a non- partisan manner once elected.
An excuse to go against the norm set by Republicans in 2016.
Using Justice department as personal law firm.
Standard tacking on of pet projects to must-pass omnibus legislation.
Not important only because it is so unlikely to happen.
Obvious ploy to have a court that would be sympathetic in case the election gets to the Court.  Court vote in Bush v. Gore was strictly along party lines.
Effort to use the postal system for voter supression.
elections, public opinion, Congress, presidency
This is abnormal, but given the current pandemic, it could have been a safer way to do this for a sitting president. Unfortunately, the administration failed at this effort and took very few precautions to spread the virus at the event itself (ignoring masking and social distancing guidelines).
The only election that I can remember being delayed were the September 11, 2001 NY primary.  There is not a legitimate reason to delay the 2020 election.
This is a curious action that is based on bad-faith argument that idea that calling out racism, is in itself, a form a racism.
This broke protocol (and likely the Hatch Act) for a sitting cabinet member to actively campaign for a candidate, at taxpayer expense.  These kinds of violations happen from time to time (even looking back to the Obama and W. Bush administrations), but they appear to be the exceptions and not the rule.  This kind of thing keeps happening over and over under the current administration.
Here, I was judging the finding, which is abnormal.  It is a sign of hope that a bipartisan commission could agree on this finding in the current, politicized environment.
You are doing important work. Keep it up!
Latin American Politics, Indigenous Politics
It is important for two reasons. First, it shows his disregard for rules that he agreed to abide by. After the first topic, in subsequent topical rounds President Trump spoke over V-P Biden even during the two minutes reserved for each candidate. Second, he seems to have done this tactically to make it harder for Biden to get his message across. It would be hard to illustrate the suppression of speech more graphically than seeing & hearing  the current chief executive of any country refusing to permit their opponent to speak without repeated, long-form interruptions.
This is centrally important. The president has repeatedly reiterated false statements about the security of mail-in ballots when the processes he has criticized have been in place often for many years without problems. He seems to be doing this to delegitimate those ballots  because in several swings states mail-in ballots will not be counted -- by law -- until after the election and early projections indicate that a majority of mail-in ballots may be cast against his re-election.
The USA has tried, with some success over the years, to reduce the degree to which public facilities are politicized by not using them for overtly partisan events -- like party conventions and meetings. In this sense, the decision to use the White House as  the location for his convention address not only broke with longstanding traditions but also seemed to give government sanction to the controversial decision to have attendees sit right next to one another without masks.
It would be mostly or totally normal in a looser system with flexible election dates. But, the USA has a system with a fixed federal election day that has been in place for quite some time. Accordingly, President Trump's "trial balloon" messaging about delaying the elections put his personal electoral prospects above the longstanding election date system and all of the various states & localities organizing to carry out the election with the understandable impression that the election date is fixed, not variable.
It is another step in President Trump's efforts to portray himself as an engaged economic nationalist by trying to disrupts various forms of Chinese economic activity.
While a president emphasizing aid to specific localities in an election year is mostly normal, the overall arc of this story is not because Trump politicized aid to Puerto Rico repeatedly prior to this election cycle by denying Puerto Rico aid and criticizing its public officials in ways that he did not do in states governed by Republicans and with a higher percentage of Republican voters. This reflects similar executive  behaviors with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of inter-governmental relations between the presidency and the state governments.
It's important in terms of injecting U.S. domestic politics into the conduct of our foreign minister's activities while abroad.
The public comments by the AG are not backed by systematic evidence -- neither from the justice system he helps to oversee nor by electoral systems nor by third-party investigation.  Instead, AG Barr chose  to politicize the "discovery" of a few ballots that appear to have been lost -- and which subsequent investigations has yet to generate meaningful information regarding their source nor the chain of events.
democratization, comparative public policy, transparency in public adminstration
See Michigan for why this matters.  Not acceptable.
The timing of this decision was the most alarming.
EO had little practical effect so their importance was limited.
This was horrifying and totally unacceptable.
Shows how unhinged and unable to follow rules the president is
Another page out of the fascist playbook
Systematically undermining the public's faith in democracy and lays the groundwork for a coup
log rolling has a long tradition, but this was a little over the top
Adds to inability to trust what is coming from the Administrtation
Normally this would not be an issue, but the GOP made it one when Obama was President
Political Psychology and American political institutions
it's part of a pattern of politicizing the department to please the president
Those remarks depress turnout, scare prospective election workers, and inspire election violence by white supremacists.
most of his executive orders are not self-executing and fail to have the stated impact.
The problem is not that a second vote could be recorded; it can't.  The problem is spreading distrust in election results and undermining the legitimate use of absentee ballots.
all presidents feel that they get unfair treatment by the press, so it's normal for presidents to complain.  What's abnormal is the enemy/adversary language that denies the role of free press in a democracy.  Trump is undermining the normal national press and legitimizing his own crony press (Fox and more).
Depends on whether the national security rationale is real
diversity training is needed because of bias and discrimination
the election is already underway and the decision is hypocritical based on how GOP treated Merrick Garland.
President needs to be a unifier who applies the same standard to all violent and anti-democratic groups.
The military is meant to deal with foreign adversaries that threaten the U.S. Police and in some instances the national guards would be appropriate to handle violent protests.  Journalists never should be implicated in military action.  Courts are the appropriate agency for a rule of law.
As business measures these may make sense as reforms, but when vote-by-mail is dominant, it is essential the ballots are received and delivered in a timely manner.
Administrative agencies are not meant to serve politicians but the public good.
He was in Jerusalem on U.S, business.  Campaigning is meant to be done outside official business.
Appropriate questions.  Need more on private armies -- militias, para-military units of DHS
The issue is not if a president says this, but if it is true, so I feel the question does not capture the important element.
Again, democratic media panic porn.  In context, he was making a point about cheating.  Unbelievable how democratic media spins these things.  Making it harder and harder to remain supportive of the dem party when I cannot deny the media bias - took me a long time to admit this.
I do not think he seriously planned on doing that, but the democratic media exaggerated his statements.  What about Biden not wanting to debate and the dem biased debate organization arranging that for him?
Blown out of context and many journalists have become extremely partisan making fox look better and better.  It cannot be denied by objective observers.  They are not there to report news.  They are there to cheerlead for the dems and spin stories.
And the dems would be silent if a company banned only dem attire?  Who is making these questions?  Obviously a biased dem.
California needs to clean up its act, including engaging in better forest management - even on federal lands that are in their state (work together and have the state take some initiative).  I am tired of my tax money going to California’s spending when my state tightens it belt to not be in the red.  I totally agree the rest of America should not bail out Calif and New York.  Colorado manages their forests well, even making sure federal lands are safe.
There must be clear line when the ability to nominates starts and ends.  If we move it back to a few months prior to an election, then what about a month before that, and a month before that?  Will it be anytime in the second half of a term, a president cannot nominate a justice?  The republicans were unconstitutional when they refused Obama’s nomination.  The dems should not do the same unconstitutional act.  A president can and must nominate a candidate any time he or she is president period.  It’s the only way to follow the constitution and not have chaos if the dates during which a president can nominate someone becomes debatable and ambiguous. The dems are being hypocritical and causing the problem on this issue.  Their inclination to pack the court is even worse.  Makes it hard to keep being a dem these days.
I think the question is biased.  They are not ending early, they are not extending it.  Very flawed question.
This survey is totally biased to the far left.  I am very disappointed.  Questions force answers through poor wording and selective choice, such as in the section on rating the possibility of things happening post election.
Prevents public from gaining information during a debate and sets poor model for civic behavior and respect of opposition.
DOJ should not act as the president's personal lawyer
Canceling them eliminates possibility for questions and follow up.
Interfering in scientific expertise and public health for political gain of one party/candidate.
Of all of the dangerous, impulsive, and reckless behaviors engaged in by the President, this is by far the most incendiary. It is difficult to exaggerate the potential ramifications of his refusal to step down in January if he loses decisively.   When Al Gore stepped aside during the contested election in 2000, his supporters left the streets and went home. Today, the unprecedented level of cultural and political conflict suggests that no single Democrat will have the power to quell anger and unrest on the left, should the President refuse to step down after a resounding defeat.
While not as consequential as the president refusing to leave office, the authoritarian tendencies evidenced in threatening and intimidating bureaucrats, and the use and abuse of State agencies to prop up a failing presidency, are still quite serious.
Had Republicans not blocked Garland's nomination, there would be far less conflict around advancing Barrett's nomination. The hypocrisy is so glaring, that even the most even handed and dispassionate persons find the behavior of McConnell noxious and an offense to civility and the integrity of our system.
If implemented this would constitute an unprecedented abuse of executive power in the modern era.
Signifies ongoing attempts by the Republican party to keep from becoming a permanent minority party--which they are on track to accomplish for at least a generation. The very existence of the Republican party is at stake, and of course Republican elite are well aware of this, and act accordingly.
gender and election violence in transitional democracies
There are like 800 of them.  They are not a threat themselves, but if other self-appointed militias show up we could be in for violence.
One could imagine a situation in which delay was necessary but Trumps credibility on the issue is zero.
Asserting hierarchical control within the legal limits set by Congress is not inherently undemocratic. Its rarely done however.
he had three years to do it.  Hoping to pick up some Florida votes. but this is normal in electoral politics
Callouts by the president of the United States to violent paramilitary groups is dangerous and completely undemocratic. Threat level flashing red. Is he trying to send us down a path of insurgent civil war?
There aren't even words to describe how dangerous and unacceptable this is. Pure authoritarian strongman tactic.
Indicative of strong politicization of the federal bureaucracy and policies & rules being made based on politics rather than best practices, evidence, and what's good for the country. This can seriously undermine people's trust in the government & with that legitimacy - no legitimacy, no democracy.
Seems like a largely political ploy. The Chinese do influence their firms & apps do have access to our data and WeChat apparently has security issues like lack of end-to-end encryption. But as a major national security threat? That seems several bridges too far and goes more toward demonizing China. A bigger issue is the precedent of regulating apps based on questionable criteria.
This is pure partisan bullying and fundamentally undemocratic. You don't give reward to states that favor you & withhold funds from the taxpayers of states that you don't like. Also, science!
Aid is normal. The amount probably isn't enough. The timing could be questionable but PR needs support.
Voter intimidation! Anti-democratic. Could undermine voting and that's a disaster.
Some political pressures are always going to be present but this is a higher than normal politicization of decision making and too much of that will undermine public trust in the government and harm legitimacy.
Is this not insulting or insulting?  Insulting.
It's borderline normal in that it's in-line with gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Iran-Contra and the effort to block the Pentagon Papers were abnormal...?  Seems like lots of administrations have done shady things like those.
Given that earlier the Republicans stated that their principle was to let the election winner decide seats like these.  It is a hypocritical power grab by Trump and the Republicans this time.  The importance of the results on the Court are immense and will last for decades.
Very alarming.  Threatens the election process.
Particularly bad for all the staff and others enlisted in the event
It would be nice if William Barr would function as Attorney General of the United States of America and not as Donald John Trump's fixer.
President Trump has undermined the fundamental political importance of the United States of America. In promoting liberty, equality, and justice throughout the world; the transition of power between Federalist John Adams and Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson was a seminal event. It is also regrettable that Trump continues to incite violence, and has never been dealt with for his violation of a U.S. statute in 2016 when he threatened Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in August of that year with his "second amendment solution".
Doing so would establish tyranny in the United States of America.
This degrades the U.S. military, which is constituted to engage in activities overseas.
Congress is the first branch of the U.S. Government, and must discharge its responsibilities of oversight for the United States of America to avoid devolving into a totalitarianism.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in CHAPLINSKY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE that incitement to violence lacks First Amendment protection. Trump should be held liable for harm emanating from his inciting of violence.
He has failed to prevent Co-Vid 19 at the White House and served as a super spreader of the virus; it is foolish for him to micro-manage the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.
Puerto Rico should become the fifty-first state as soon as possible. This was the wish of the late President George H.W. Bush.
It is increasingly evident that the president is desperate to remain in office.  The question is what direction the majority of Republicans in Congress, and in state government will take to protect the actual vote.
Well, do you wonder?   It sows confusion, his favorite condition.
Much as in my earlier answer, I believe he is deeply in debt and fearful of the consequences of 'collection' if/when he is out of office.
Postmasters General have often been presidential allied, but his instance seems to be well out of bounds.
Reporters often place themselves in dangerous circumstances.  They may also irritate a lot of people by their presence and reporting.
It is mostly rhetoric, although I'm not sure he recognizes that.
Postmasters' General have often been political allies of presidents.  Outright interference is probably now unique.
The number of Congressional seats is far too low, and attempting to redistribute those few based on an incomplete census will only favor the better off, and more established citizens of the country.
Normative political theory, emphasis on citizenship.
Parts of it seem a bit slanted toward the president's personality.  The issue of democracy in America is far wider than the presidency.
It is a threat to free speech, not to mention a threat to peoples' lives.
Diversity training is an essential component of changing implicit biases.
In and of itself, it's normal, but not within the context of the Republican Party previously blocking a nomination for the same reason.
Elections should not militarized, as it can make people feel intimidated.
It is clearly targeting certain groups to ensure they are undercounted for political reasons.
I don't think it was an intentional statement, and he condemned them the next day after being pressured. He likes everyone who likes him, regardless of how repugnant they might be. That's what's abnormal.
When he says this kind of thing, I think he's scaring voters away because it is so very abnormal. But it's still important.
What he says won't affect how things are done, and he's probably scaring voters away from him. The main problem is that he's sowing distrust in the system.
The pentagon has always been like this, and journalists manage anyway because they're protected very well by the Constitution.
No one has been trusting the CDC guidelines much anyway. What's abnormal is that it's a total policy free for all across the country.
The President should be uninvolved in the census.
The attorney general should be able to brief the President. It's the person in that seat blasting it out to the public that's not normal.
Civil war, rebel groups, secession, diplomacy
A lot questions could have used "don't know" options because I don't know what's normal.
International Organization and International Human Rights
Not to mention the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor
It is always hard to know when he is joking.
This is a huge violation of norms, and is likely to continue to politicize the Court
The director of the FBI is right, mail in ballots are pretty secure.
Joe Biden did nearly the same think 8 years ago at the presidential debate to Paul Ryan. Debates don't matter.
This question is an embarrassment to your project, and you should be ashamed for asking it. His first response was "Yes" when asked. The "stand back and stand by" came in a follow up, which he initiated, and the "stand down" language was provided by Chris Wallace.
It would be a bigger deal if there had been a convention, and he *still* was in front of the White House.
Voting twice is a crime, and neither candidates nor presidents should suborn crimes (even jokingly) but he claims he was joking, and even if not, the statement seems unlikely to increase voter fraud that wouldn't have already happened.
Adversary is a term of art within training courses, which means "not the people on your team," and almost always means "actors within the training environment, intended to create a specific training opportunity." If you had a training intended to improve people's negotiation skills with allies, within the training scenario the ally would be the 'adversary.' Another word for 'adversary' would be 'OPFOR.'  When the military says something meaning 'the bad guy' the words are 'enemy', 'national competitor', 'REDFOR'. The entire controversy is a combination of ignorance, imputation and taking things so far out of context as to cast doubt on the honesty of those involved.   In fact, if I did not know about this case, *this question* casts doubt on the honesty of this survey. "Which training course?" would be the first thing anyone should ask, and honest inquiry should include that information in any such survey.
Hugely bad thing, but he has no means or support not to transition whether he wants to or not. The most he can do is land himself in prison, and stir up controversy, both of which would be bad, but the government would go on.
Barack Obama inveighed against governors whose policies he did not like, and actually held back money from states that did not expand Medicare.
Cabinet Secretaries regularly speak at conventions. Pompeo's speach from Jerusalem was certainly unusual but may be just as much a factor of the bizarre circumstances of the convention as anything else.
I participate in this survey in good faith, but I feel many of the questions were not asked in good faith. I noted one in my response where the facts as presented were simply false, and misrepresented the events as occurred. I noted a second where relevant information is not in the public domain was not included in a way likely to bias answers.  The assessing the probability section was almost silly, since some of the outcomes are contingent on other improbable outcomes, and therefore inherently. (e.g. Biden overturning the electoral college) Several require an expertise that most political scientists are ill equipped to assess, including but not limited to the questions about the postal service, and Russian hacking. At best those responses reflect the biases in political science, and more likely are just wild guesses by people no more informed on the subject than your average American.
Christ on a cracker that was embarrassing. Look. All debates include interruptions; that's part of the terrain. But at that level and volume, where Biden could barely get a word in and where it was clear that was an effort to throw him off because he has a stutter?  Shameful.    That said, not a surprise.  Trump is an arrogant, narcissistic bully who refuses to listen to anyone. Only semi-important because it is not new behavior.
Gah.  I can't even begin to imagine how much actual blood would have been spilled if President Obama had said this.  It's appalling authoritarian.  To undercut the legitimacy of an election in this way is playing with fire and likely to lead to a Constitutional crisis.
I mean, is it wise? Probably not.  It is gross? Yes.  Is it all that unusual to have the kind of weird unrelated earmark for a pet project in an omnibus bill?  Not really.
Again, if the US could hold election during an actual Civil War and if NYC could hold an election after 9/11, it seems reasonable that we could hold one now?!  It is absolutely gob-smacking that a sitting president would suggest this as a course of action.
Restricting intelligence briefings to just paper is a huge shift that denies Congressional leaders from being able to question and learn more about national security from those with intel. This is incredibly vexing, particularly given the recent Senate Intelligence Committee's report on extensive Russian interference with the 2016 election.
Aid happens after disasters, so that part is normal. ...But usually it's not delayed until THREE YEARS AFTER THE DISASTER. It's been clear that this was a desperate need for PR for a long time, so to delay it until right before the election seems...fishy.
I mean, this hasn't been normal for a long time. It was back in the day, though? Regardless, it seems likely that the intent is to suppress the vote/intimidate voters, and I doubt that federal officers would be going to suburbs; they would be going to black and brown neighborhoods or to liberal urban areas.  He doesn't actually have the authority to do this, as voting is a state and local thing.  But that he wants to is significant, shows how little he understands politics, and is pretty unusual.
Literally ignoring the Constitution in ways unlike previous presidents.
I don't know enough about state levels of "democracy" to offer meaningful feedback/assessment on that question.  Hope it doesn't screw up your survey.    I rated Ohio low on democracy because of the radical gerrymandering that has skewed our legislature overwhelmingly Republican even though the state usually votes majority democratic for state legislative seats.
International Political Economy; Democratization and Economic Development
legislative, judicial politics,  civil liberties civil rights    state & local goernment
Trump himself appointed a commission to investigate election fraud and they found nothing. He is attempting -- fraudulently -- to dissuade anti-Trump (as most mail-in voters are) to suppress the vote and then, if he loses it, to create, fraudulently, the basis for challenging what the outcome indicates. It is the behavior of a petty dictator who holds office through rigged elections. It is a fundamental threat to the principles on which the United States was founded and has mostly operated for nearly two and a half centuries.
The voting process is assigned to the states by the constitution. Trump's statement is a foolish, cheap-talk statement that is only likely to influence supporters who, anyway, disregard the constitution and the expectations of one-person one-vote(which, of course, the Electoral College violates).
This deprives the Congress of its constitutional duty to oversee intelligence and to make informed assessments. It violates the separation of powers principle on which the USA was founded.
Elections and the voice of the voters through them are intended to handle disputes between candidates, not the Supreme Court. And as he picks the nominee the idea that there is not a conflict of interests if the matter goes to the court is absurd. Any justice confirmed in the shadow of the election must be recused if the election somehow were to be an issue before the Court.
He did so it seem to manipulate the arrival of ballots particularly from Democrats. This is a crime that, if substantiated by evidence, should be prosecuted.
It is similar to Woodrow Wilson's banning African-Americans from the federal civil service. Unlike Wilson's action, however, it violates norms of good behavior and not the equal protection clause directly. It will not have a big impact because Trump will be out of office soon and it will not have set a precedent that will be followed in the future.
It violates the norm that separates partisan interests of Pompeo as a citizen and his national obligations as Secretary of State.
It would be normal if he could show a prevalence of violations of the secrecy of the ballot through mail-in ballots but he has not and cannot. Hence it is use of his office as a protector of the law to, instead, advance the president's agenda by misleading about the facts and the law.
the nexus between comparative and international politics from a political economy perspective
Each of these questions is worded in a left-leaning way, leading the reader to make assumptions consistent with liberal ideology. For example, simply stating that these measures caused delays in mail delivery suggests collusion with Trump's distaste for mail-in voting. Whether this action is consistent with such collusion or simply the result of unrelated management decisions is ultimately what you want to ask about. Unfortunately, the question phrasing suggests to the reader a particular interpretation. This problem is not unique to this particular question in the survey. This will lead to potentially biased survey results.
Again, this is a leading statement. Of course diversity is a good thing. Trump banned a particular type of diversity training that is controversial. Was this action appropriate? That is a meaningful question for a survey. However, your respondents are led to respond to whether or not diversity training in general is good. Your results will describe opinions on diversity training in general, not on critical race theory.
The survey question phrasing was leading, suggesting interpretation consistent with liberal preferences. This will bias survey results, under-reporting conservative opinion. This under-reporting will lead to surprises similar to how the outcome of the 2016 election was so unexpected.
The particular instance is not so important. The use of the Justice Department to protect the President in a case unrelated to functions of government is very important.
As a single event, only semi-important. As part of a pattern to conflate partisan political  and personal loyalty with loyalty to the nation, the Constitution, and democracy, very important.
Blaming California is politics as usual. Withholding federal funds in the wake of a disaster is unusual and important.
The White House pressures agencies all the time, not only in this administration. Whether schools are open or closed is in current circumstances important.
Secretaries of State are also partisan figures - consider Hillary Clinton or John Kerry or James Baker.  Foreign policy moves, in this case support of Israel, are also political (in this case, trying to lock in the votes of Evangelical Christians). Using a foreign backdrop was unusual, but only borderline.
Colluding with a foreign country generally considered hostile to influence an election is totally out of bounds.
In questions about normality and importance it was not clear if importance referred to the specific event, or to the pattern it represented (e.g., accepting a nomination at the White House).
In this and the related efforts asked about here, the American president is attacking the very foundations of American democracy, and undermine the legitimacy of elections,  Unreal...
He's jockeying for advantage, should the election outcome be decided in the courts.
"Norma" as in, expected of a conservative administration.  Especially one headed by a racist, appealing to his racist base.
The GOP invented an election-year nomination "norm" to justify stonewalling an Obama nominee...and then ignored that very norm to justify ramming through a Trump nominee.
Electoral behavior, public opinion, methods
Thank you for undertaking and continuing this effort!
With COVID-19, hard to say if this has any particular intended symbolism.
I use abnormal in the sense that this isn't the sign of a functional government with the legislature as the primary instrument of law-making. It is normal, in the sense that this isn't new to the current administration.
Bickering over fault is not uncommon (see Hurricane Katrina and the acrimony b/t G.W. Bush and LA Governor), however, the threats to without federal funding seems extremely abnormal to me.
As Chief Executive, this seems to be within President Trump's purview. However, this level of micromanagement of federal agencies is probably a step in the wrong direction if agency management feels that pursuing a particular training would address organizational needs.
Good reason to suspect this was politically orchestrated by Trump campaign and/or  White House.
Normal in that it is constitutional. But in light of Garland’s treatment and GOP ideological court packing project, it becomes a step too far.
No scenarios on the Democratic side, only about Trump and the Republican side.
The use of public facilities for political activity crosses a clear normative line and violates the spirit of the Hatch Act.
This is a clear departure from what would be considered normal behavior in a consolidated democracy.
Normally in a crisis we would see, I don't know, some bipartisan compromise.  The tenor of the campaign is such that it doesn't help, but if you recall Senators McCain and Obama returned to Washington in Sept. 2008 to address the Lehman Bros collapse and the credit crisis.  So you'd think there be something being done on this as Fed Chair Powell is essentially predicting a massive collapse of consumer confidence and household spending, which will undermine the basis of the economy.
The notion that an elected official anywhere, but in a consolidated democracy, and the top elected official in the system, would suggest supporters engage in illegal activity is beyond the pale.
It would more acceptable if the election system had the flexibility to move Election Day, or had a shorter, regulated campaign season, but given the
The nature of HHS rulemaking, particularly in a fast-moving crisis, is of central concern, and any new limitation applied to health-related agencies with pre-existing internal rulemaking procedures rooted in best practices can be considered abnormal and problematic on face value.  A deeper analysis of the politicization of agency rulemaking by a Trump Administration with a history of repressing unfavorable science raises additional concerns.
Needing 9 justices to settle an important case is not abnormal, stoking the conditions in which there would be an election dispute and instigating countless lawsuits undermining state's ability to conduct elections, that is abnormal.
Cases of mishandling ballots are not uncommon in small numbers, in a decentralized pattern across the country.  The notion of wide-scale and systemic vote tampering is an obvious lie.
Normal for Trump; abnormal for other presidents
This is one of the clearest threats to American democracy I can imagine. Free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power are fundamental to a functioning democratic republic. To declare widespread fraud in advance without any evidence whatsoever and not commit to a peaceful transfer of power is a slide into authoritarianism.
A president encouraging voter fraud is very unusual and very concerning.
This was a moment in which instead of using coded "dog whistles," language that he could deny was racist, he explicitly aligned with a violent, anti-democratic white supremacist organization by, in plain words, asking them to "stand by" [and be ready to help him if called upon.]
The manner of Trumps antagonistic actions against China is of concern, but in this case, those of us who conduct research on cybersecurity and related areas actually are concerned about what the Chinese government might do with data collected by Chinese companies.
It is lamentable but normal according to the rules.
Almost every Republican I know rejects the premises underlying diversity training.  Consequently, I can't rule out possibility that any Republican administration would take this action.  Thus it seems to be within the range of "normal" partisan behavior.
It's important because it shows corruption and collaboration with foreign interests of an individual who was very close to the president.  The importance was lessened by the fact that he was held accountable through the judicial system.
This may just be military-speak, but it unfortunately reinforces the mindset that sees the military and the police as forces of control, even over the people they are supposed to protect.
Potentially the most dangerous act of a highly dangerous official.
Unfortunately this sort of behavior has become more normal under this administration. But "law and order" has been around as an excuse for excessive police force for decades,.
Normal for Trump. Abnormal for any other president. Undermines very principle of democratic elections.
The role of government in protecting its citizens depends in part on the ability of the public to trust its health agencies. Such blatant political interference undermines that trust.
At what point does he stop looking like a president and start looking like a strongman dictator?
Again, loss of public confidence in public health agencies is a result.
South Asian Politics and Security; Political Thought; Administrative Ethics
Thanks for continuing to do this. Good survey.
Tucking unrelated items into spending bills is another tactic used by both parties to get their policies funded/enacted. Again, not the way we were established to operate. This is abnormal, but normal for our times.
Recently, presidents of either party, in going around Congressional inaction, have resorted to executive orders. This is not the way our system was established to operate.
This is traitorous and un-American. The peaceful transfer of presidential power was established by Pres. Washington and is a hallmark of American democracy.
Its unclear in this question whether you are asking whether the bipartisan committee report is normal/abnormal or whether you are asking about the behavior of Manafort.  I answered this as borderline normal referring to the bipartisan committee reporting something, not Manafort's behavior, which I consider abnormal.
The office has always been used for electioneering purposes, but this is a bit more brazen than most techniques.
We have so expanded executive power in this country that this is mostly normal. The executive orders themselves are likely entirely legal. Doing so after talks break down is a way of shifting authority and initiative to the executive. It happens all the time, and while it is important and troubling in the aggregate any individual instance is just same old same old.
He can suggest someone should walk on the sun, doesn't mean it's gonna happen. If he were to do anything to try and delay the election - like he's doing to try and encourage Republican legislatures to decide the electoral slate themselves - then it would be important.
It's a bad joke and a bad thing to joke about but a joke is obviously not the same thing as a commitment.
It's a perfectly correct statement. It's not even that undemocratic, at least beyond the at-times undemocratic and always at least somewhat concerning role that has already been ceded to the judiciary in the conduct of American elections.   The problem isn't with him saying it, it's with (1) the fact that the court is a more or less blunt partisan instrument, and (2) that our electoral system is such a nightmare that it requires constant judicial supervision and intervention in a way that is impossible to render coherent, opening further space for naked power grabs.
Executive orders that target largely symbolic programs for largely symbolic reasons are not exactly important, but the fact that this was done to curry favor with overt racist movements and to give symbolic credence to their claims makes it more important. (D&E or D&I programs are largely useless, and are the pathetic fifth-best alternative left in this country given the absence of any real commitment for structural reform and a radically narrowed range of possibilities for real affirmative action programs left by the heavy hand of a reactionary Supreme Court)
American Political Institutions and Development
Democratization, political economy, Latin America
Latin American Politics; Indigenous and Ethnic Minority Representation
The full power and resources of the DOJ is being used by the Prez as a personal agency to settle case against a private citizen.
Federal courts are countermajoritarian institutions and them getting involved in elections erodes the legitimacy of the results.
Never have we had a president who so blatantly doesn't care about states who didn't vote for him.
Never has a president so blatantly politicized USPS which should be a public good.
The AG does not believe in the rule of law and is a handmaiden of an authoritarian.
Devastating impact on respect for democracy and democratic institutions
I despise him like most political scientists, but to quote the political theorist Charlie Brown, "Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it?"
Again, a joke (not a dog whistle) that apparently only deplorables understand.
Trade wars. Maybe some national security.
CA needs to do some forest management. It will not solve the problem, they it will help, and it won't take 50 years to have an impact.
Again, politics. Oh, and mail ballots are extremely susceptible to ballots being "lost" or fraud even if it hasn't happened yet. It will. Also prone to many being disqualified, which has happened in Democratic states. If we cared about ballot security rather than just winning, we would not allow this. Period.
Last time I commented that I was fairly certain this survey was biased (and I am a pollster!). Along with Elvis, fairly certain has left the building. I must have missed the questions about the legitimacy of packing the Court or eliminating the filibuster. You should petition to have me removed from this survey and the profession. I clearly do not meet your standards. Conservatives and Libertarians not  welcome here!
He did it before, so it's not completely abnormal
After 4 years of Trump, distinguishing normal from abnormal is difficult
Assuming you mean Manafort's behavior rather than the investigation.
While I worry about the ever-expanding influence of the executive branch, I also have to admit that this has been a general trend across both parties over the last few decades.
This is one of the most troubling suggestions made by Trump, as it smacks of voter intimidation.
William Barr is a genuine threat to American democracy.
unprecedented action on the part of a president
suspicious timing given past statements and treatment
Bullying. Models and validates anti-democratic practice and totalitarian impulse.
Symbolic action consistent with his values
Too vague a question.  Need specific actions to judge.
It's crassly flaunting one's power. Not presidential, but probably not a serious matter. Embarrassing to have the rest of the world see our national peacock preening, though.
This is not the job of the executive branch. Election day is set by law and the president can't just say, "Don't like that law. Let's ignore it."
It isn't presidential. Unfortunately, at this point it's par for the course, which is exactly why Trump needs to be removed.
The president is trying to punish free speech. That's bad.
I don't know much about this -- is that a lot or a little? I think PR got less than it needed, which is a jerk move but hardly surprising.
It's hard not to understand this as attempting voter intimidation. Bad.
The CDC advises the government, not the other way around.
Are you asking whether the bipartisanship of the finding is unusual? Or whether the finding is unusual? I assumed the latter. Foreign interference in U.S. government matters, facilitated by a close advisor of the president, is a big, corrupt deal.
Trump is anti-democratic and refuses to allow voting as usual.
Trump and the conservatives are attempting to eliminate criticism
This administration is extremely non-transparent
Trump is trying to eliminate all opposition to him and to magnify all supporter position
This administration is the most anti-democratic and the most anti-Civil Rights oriented administration of my lifetime.
It is highly unusual for a US president and his aids to collaborate with Russia on US elections
Trump is trying to manipulate the census to his and the Republican political advantage
president actively trying to discredit the electoral process, likely to use fraudulent fraud claims as a means to attempt a coup if he loses
earmarks are sometimes necessary to get projects completed, but it's inappropriate for pork in a emergency relief bill.
authoritarian, and displays that the president does not understand the constitution which is scary
president should not incite violence or unrest, and it's also arguably an attack on the first amendment
its really just childish, but can't use office for private gain.  this is perhaps not gain directly, but it's pursuing private agenda through the prestige of the office.
I acknowledge that there may be actual legitimate security concerns with some foreign apps, especially if there may be links to foreign governments.  China has been known to build hardware backdoors into telecom equipment such as routers and network hubs.  But this is politically motivated rather than motivated by national security concerns.
I found the quality of state questions very difficult to answer.  I do not know very much about state governments in states where I have not lived, so generally I'd approach those as only measuring guesses based on reputation or stereotype.
Impacts one-person, one-vote (ability to use mail in ballots)
This is an abomination.  Abnormal and important are much too mild to describe this.
The decision is normal.  There have been 27 cases of supreme court justices appointed in last yr of presidency, including John Adams.
It is so abnormal I don't have anything to say.
I have no idea on the state-level democracy questions.
Could set a bad precedent, but not so important because it hurt Trump.
Normal would be less an issue if it didn't break a precedent set four years ago.
Congress moves money around all the time.The House should tell them no.
It depends upon the context of when and where the reporter got hit. Lafayette Park at 4:30 in the afternoon before any kind of dispersal order was announced this would be abnormal and important. Downtown Baltimore at 3:30 AM six hours after a mandatory curfew has been announced and while a section of businesses are being looted and burned then it rates a mostly normal and mostly unimportant
as stated before, Trump is an idiot so the bar is pretty low
Appealing to your supporters to do a lawful act isn't a crime. it's just weird when it comes from the President
this sends a chilling effect to  people who see "law enforcement" as hostile
Public health issues should be determined by public health professionals
The president is seen in front of the White House all the time, so most viewers will not distinguish between a campaign event and another type of presidential appearance.
Did the talks really "break down" or were they "broken down" quite purposefully? This president wanted to shake up the establishment in Washington, be a disruptive force, and it is not surprising that he wrecks negotiations with other branches of state and prefers polarization to bipartisanship. That's his MO. What people may miss amid this showmanship is that presidents before him increasingly have used executive actions to get things done in the face of legislative gridlock. It isn't unusual, it's the new normal. And it smacks of dictatorship, the routinization of decision-making in spaces where the people cannot hold their government accountable.
Trump shoots his mouth off and says all sorts of outrageous things that I am prepared to dismiss as just another attempt to manipulate the news cycle, but this is where I draw the line. Fixed terms lie at the heart of a presidential system. Contingent consent lies at the heart of democracy. Presidents must be prepared to face the electorate at the polls, on schedule, and to depart the Oval Office gracefully if he loses the election. As a Latin Americanist I am painfully aware of the alternative -- continuismo.
As long as Congress gets the information it needs, one can forgive anyone for not wanting to show up in person for almost anything during the current pandemic. But the Congress cannot make good decisions if it is starved of information, and in person briefings permit more opportunity to ask questions and judge whether intelligence personnel are being honest. And let's face - the intelligence community has as time simply lied to Congress and makes a habit of lying by omission.
I list it as "mostly important" rather than "important" because I don't think such a directive can be effectively implemented, so we need not worry quite so much. Is the Trump administration aware that this is a federal system in which the national government has limited authority within states?
Trump says many crazy things, so it is hard to list any of his remarks as important, but here he seems to be laying the groundwork for approval of his nominee to the Court before the election which is a rush job -- if he wins, there is plenty of time, and if he loses the election it is an indication the public is not confident of judgment so he shouldn't be appointing Court members. The statement also indicates the Court should judge electoral matters, which it has largely declined to do and with good reason - if it gets any more politicized the Court will be delegitimized
Again, a pandemic may not be the ideal moment to be offering training, and as long as it is reinstated in a reasonably short period of time we can cope with this change. But with tensions running high around the election, police shootings of Black Americans continuing, and right wing extremist groups getting ever more violent, good leadership would involve modeling the importance of diversity by continuing training. Doing the opposite just sends the wrong signal. Regrettably, it is mostly normal to give low priority to the problems of racism and inequality in America.
I have organized election monitoring missions in half a dozen countries and been an observer in half a dozen more, and I assure you that for a government to send state security agents to have an armed presence inside polling places is simply unacceptable in a democracy. The notion that such authorities could be neutral election observers is simply absurd. The veiled threat to militarize the election process is what sends this into the category of "important".
Latin American politics, especially transitions to democracy
Note that several of my answers are affected by the current context of a pandemic. Governments often do extraordinary things in a time of national crisis, and this is such a time. I am willing to grant some leeway on those grounds, but I am also aware that governments create and exacerbate national crises in order to manipulate public sentiment and take undemocratic actions that would not normally be tolerated. I wonder what difference the pandemic will make in the tenor of the responses you receive.
That is bad form and encouraging distrust, fear and unrest.
There is supposed to be a peaceful change from one Administration to the next.
American political culture, rhetoric, conservatism
As part of a pattern undermining and threatening to manipulate elections, very.
He lacks real power to enforce this, but the declaration is significant especially in light of that.
Using the White House for political purposes politicizes the presidency in unhealthy ways.
Trump is planting the seeds for violent reactions if he loses.
Attempting to create a biased court as a hedge to retain power is a clear tactic from the dictator's playbook.
Law enforcement in uniform at polls are not inherently intimidating or problematic but can provide security.
An accurate census is key to accreting allotting representatives and distributing needed public services. This goes back to the Constitution, and the failure to carry out an accurate census and attempts to politicize it are deeply problematic.
See comments above.  The secretary of states of the 50 states generally hold their positions because of their competence at administering elections.  Jocelyn Benson of Michigan is both competent and honest, as are local election officials.
Doing so broke a tradition.  I'd think most Americans would not care all that much.
This president suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.  The following are adjectives that describe him:  bully, con-man. coward, draft dodger, philanderer, congenital liar, deadbeat, gaslighter, mocker of the disabled, veterans, and service members, ignoramus, ... this is just the start.  You may add your own.   It is a heritable condition.    Don't expect him to admit error.  He'll do whatever he thinks will advance his interests.  He is without empathy.  He won't change.  Don't even try.   The charge that elections are rigged is just more horse manure leaving his lips.
After 3+ years as president, there is little or no reason to pay much attention to the drivel that leaves his lips.
I'm not informed about possible security issues associated with this ban.  Trump wants to blame China for many different ills, often without a shred of evidence.   Well, yes, Covid-19 did come from China, but blame the horseshoe bat/
Upon orders from Trump?   How many boot lickers are left in this administration?  Many wanted to serve their country.  They soon realized that they were only to serve Trump.
He has the authority to do so under the Constitution.   I'd think the Democratic Party would do the same if it were in the same situation as the Republican Party today--that is, controlling the Presidency and the Senate but not the House.
The Bureau of the Census is a very professional agency.  Presidents should not interfere in their work.  An accurate Census is important in many different ways--for reapportionment and redistricting and for determining the dollars that go to state and local governments.
I think "despicable" would be better than abnormal - though I answered that way, it's worth noting that we have had racist presidents in the past. Still, one hoped that norms had made public endorsement of same politically impossible.
The president is an idiot (and we have normalized that to an alarming degree), but this was a joke.
I had fewer objections to question wording than I do on most surveys I take.
Not only was itt amazingly uncivil in itself, it has never happened before and was not condemned by his enablers, part of a complete break down of civility by the Senate Republicans and Trump. We need a conservative party; not a right wing culture war.
He should not condone racism with code words calling for violent people to stand by to be ready to be violent. The meaning is to be ready to act violent when he gives the signal at a time when police are killing blacks. Part of his coup d'etat rhetoric.
Some get upset by use of office for partisan purposes. I'm surprise it doesn't happen more often as long s rules are not broken. It's a breakdown in norms, relatively minor for the GOP Senators and Trump.
Trump abrogated legislative power and seems to have gotten away with it (my impression; need more info)..
Part of his effort to take over the government with a coup d'etat.
Most of the forests are owned by the federal government. Cal Fire (the relevant state dept.) and government in general have done as much as any other state. Trump made claims with no evidence as a politisan attack with his constant divisiveness and demagoguery.
problem is not his speaking but the support for Zionism (apartheid, ethnic cleansing, occupation, human rights abuses) in opposition to Judaism.
My impression is that the evidence was so overwhelming that Republicans recognized it even if to a lesser extent than the Dems.
Seems like there may be some special interest issues here. Is this Trump bullying or something more?
President Trump punishes states for not going along with his PERSONAL ideas.
Again, use of CDC for partisan gains/reasons.
The Secretary of State should try to appear non-partisan.
This is mis-information and an abomination.
Criminal violence and security/social movements
I really appreciate this professional effort and am very proud of my field for doing it!
Political parties, elections, political culture
Thank you for continuing this survey.  You do a tremendous service for all of us.
You cannot learn when you are speaking you need to listen to learn what is needed, Trump wants to talk rather than listen.
Government offices should not be used for political matters
The rule making authority of an agency is fluid and needs to be updated
Most of the fires occurred on Federal Lands
We as a nation rely on the post office to conduct regular business and to keep us whole during times of quarantine.
this isn't something he's likely to be able to do anything about, so while it may be part of his attempt to set up the election as illegitimate, this one isn't likely to work.  Of course, if he were able to do this, then it's all over.
The Justice Department are supposed to represent the People, not Trump. That was a completely corrupt act, and should result in Barr's removal from office.
Hopefully they will, so their votes get thrown out and they face justice for their illegal act.
It is more common for police than the military, but either way it should never happen.
Yet another attack on the Constitution by this administration.
Normal for Trump, that is, but should not be normal for anyone.
This wasn't a joke. By itself, suggesting you will violate the Constitution in this way should result in impeachment and removal from office.
Politicizing science should be anathema in a democracy.
He should be removed from office for this Hatch Act violation. We need to develop ways of enforcing that law.
It seems to me that this is a gross violation of the norms of the political process in the US. While not specifically a violation of the Hatch Act, to me it violates the spirit of the it.
The attacks on the election from the GOP is a serious threat to the democracy.
This is a gross violation of democratic norms and has inspired calls for a pro-Trump movement that threatens violence.
This is using the federal government as a weapon against a state critical of Trump's policies.
This is a direct attack on the voting process and is further evidence of the GOP attacks on the mail in voting process. It is also seemingly a gift to the USPS competitors UPS and FedEx.
A violation of the Hatch Act and a serious affront to the standards of foreign policy.
Comparative politics/international politics of the Middle East
Highly abnormal because U.S. elections have always been largely fair.   Extremely important because the orderly succession of power determined by elections is about the single greatest strength of U.S. democracy and this President is systematically undermining it.
Ignores the constitutional requirement that agencies in the executive branch are subject to congressional oversight.
Literally speaking, the statement above falls within presidential prerogative to express an opinion about the number of sitting justices.   But it is abnormal a president to anticipate litigation over an election or suggest that the number of justices should depend on needs to resolve specific election disputes.    It is important because it suggests that President Trump expects to contest unfavorable electoral results and doesn't want appellate decisions to stand if the Supreme Court ties at 4 votes on each side.   This is fine-tuned manipulation of the judicial branch and threatening to the fundamental principles of (a) separation of powers and (b) fair elections.
Borderline abnormal because it's within presidential powers to issue executive orders, but this one appears very finely targeted to an ideological purpose -- discouraging activities to integrate minority communities into their organizations.       The activity is extremely important because it threatens an attack on First Amendment rights and is so vaguely specified that it amounts to harassment of universities by the White House for gratuitous reasons.
Abnormal because independent agencies are supposed to be insulated from short-term partisan calculations.  It's important because the CDC was one of the most respected of scientific agencies, but it's less important in constitutional terms that the Director of National Intelligence refusing to brief Congress.
Political appointees shouldn't (and are legally prohibited from) using government resources for campaign activities such as a party convention.     This is important because (1) Secretary Pompeo's action openly ignores a law which is quite clear and well known to Washington officials and (2) the actions are especially egregious in the area of foreign policy, where previous administrations have been especially circumspect to avoid partisan actions.
Western European politics.   Public policy
... would like to see the results.   Hope the results get some broader attention.
The idea that elections are decided by courts is abnormal. The press to put a nominee on the bench is not.
Would be totally normal last year. Now it is purely political and rather aggressively so.
Even implying something like this is important is ridiculous.
My general comment is really a question.  Could this survey be any more biased?  You say that 30 comments are picked from random, but are basic 30 random?  If they have references to scandals in Republican administrations or the events to rate are controversial actions from a Republican administration, how do I know that an equal number of controversial material isn't from the Democrats' side?  When you give an example of important events, the examples are events that make Democrats proud.  In the future I won't think 2 cents about any survey coming from this group.  There is also the fundamental bias for democracy and the assumption that the "standards" to be evaluated are truly standards.  This whole operation is a farce under the guise of academic research.
One more problem with this survey: one line or one phrase is used and the respondent has no idea of the context: BIG PROBLEM.
The tension between practical politics, the Constitution and the Founders' design of US government
Virtually all previous administrations have left the collection of Census data up to the Census Bureau. It is strikingly abnormal to have a president and Secretary of Commerce involve themselves in decisions about how and when to collect Census information, especially for such transparently partisan reasons.
While the president himself is technically immune from the Hatch Act, the rest of his campaign isn't. Moreover, it's important to maintain the *symbolism* of not using the prerogatives of power to maintain power.
Trump not only disdains the laws and political norms that have constrained even the worst of our previous presidents, he grinds our faces in that disdain on a daily basis.
He does not grasp nor care about the Constitution or the limits it places on his power.
This is a direct and explicit threat to democracy that, furthermore, also displays wanton disregard for the independence of the judiciary.
He plainly doesn't understand that many California forests are on federal land; he just wants an excuse to attack a state he perceives as an enemy.
It indicates a criminal attempt to deter and diminish voting by mail.
The aid is not inherently abnormal. The timing, however, is quixotic at best.
The Secretary of State should not be taking actions in a volatile region that undermine the U.S.'s status as an honest arbiter of differences.
Modern political thought; science, technology, and politics
I think I clicked on the wrong response option in the previous question. This one is difficult to answer, however, as I'm not sure how far back I should go in order to make a determination regarding normality. Accusations of fraud were very common historically, but have been rare in more recent times.
White nationalism and democratic self-government are incompatible, which is why it is so worrisome that the president is a white nationalist.
In normal times this would have gotten more coverage and been seen as outrageous. Since what counts as "outrageous" has been changed, however, it ended up being just a blip, which is part of the problem.
Clearly an attempt to delay and obstruct this case.
The spending power resides with Congress. These EOs were outrageous.
I cannot fully reject the null hypothesis that these were simple cost-cutting measures.
It would also be abnormal if President Trump pardoned Manafort.
Are we tilting towards authoritarianism?
Free speech.  Impeding free commerce. Life, liberty, property!
National security concerns? Was there evidence to justify the decision?  Censorship for no other reason than the administration did not like the message being delivered?
Concern for independence of the judiciary.   Concern for legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
They can keep an eye on things from the outside.   Duly qualified poll watchers can keep an eye on things inside.
Promoting minority rule at the expense of the majority.
9 ballots out of millions/billions ? At least they caught the questionable ballots. I'd call this making a mountain out of a mole hill.   Questioning the integrity of the voting process in all 50 states.  AG getting involved on such an in an investigation.
The emails that were sent were too extreme. Some reminder of considerations beyond harm reduction could have been appropriate, but what they said crossed the line and was explicitly for political purposes, not general society-wide tradeoffs.
International Political Economy, Global Entertainment Industry
Hard to say if this was ham-handedness on the part of DoD or more nefarious.
While such efforts at political retribution are not uncommon, to have a president lead the charge is an abuse of the powers and prestige of the office.
Attempts at reigning in rule making by political appointees is not abnormal, per se, but usually takes place at the beginning of a new administration, especially if it represents a change of party control.  The recent HHS announcement, however, seems focused on controlling pandemic related decision-making in order to control messaging/politicize science-based decision-making.
The assertion is nakedly political and would not be leveled against a supportive, red state.
Normally not an issue, but in this instance it is such an obvious political play it is nearly akin to offering a bribe, especially given his history with the island.
Corrupting science for political purposes is very dangerous in a democracy.
Politicizing the office in this manner undercuts unity (the old adage, politics stops at the water's edge).
It was pretty challenging coming up with percent probabilities - I am not sure how consistently I would answer these questions over multiple iterations.
Depends on whether this is because of the pandemic or not.
authoritarian impulse.  undermines public confidence in democratic institutions and processes.
a government that characterizes those engaged in expression--protest or speech or press--as adversaries, is on the path to authoritarian governance.
unless repudiated by his party, undermines public confidence and emboldens the current, and future, authoritarians.
fits current administration pattern of centralizing control and at expense of best advice of experts.
important in the context of the McConnell snuffing of Obama nominee.
this is the business of the state and local election officials.  and would be a chipping away at the federal principle.
This one is trickier for me. If the GOP-controlled Senate had not deprived Judge Garland of a hearing nine months before an election, I would find this current activity to be normal and appropriate. Because of their double standard, though, I find it to be very problematic.
Political psychology; race and ethnicity
That dumb oaf is delegitimizing an institution that already hangs by a thread. The worst possible development, yet completely unsurprising from the OG Obama-birther.
The whole ordeal makes me want to beat my head into the wall.
Gets at both Trump's racism and his ultimate willingness to provoke violence, perhaps related to the election.
Pushing the envelope, but in this admin?  Meh.
Not sure this isn't more common than we might think. does it affect behavior?
Out of bounds, but blah-blah-blah at the same time.
A little obscure fo many folks, but I see it as racist and subversive.
Always interesting to contemplate the questions with specific responses.
The press should not be a target of literal bombast.
This step is extremely important--and with negative consequences-- in an election year
Sadly it is not illegal....the law should be changed, but will partisanship lower its ugly head in Congress and the White House?
Trump casts so many unfounded aspersions on the workings of the electoral system, and it is bad for the legitimacy of our system
IR Theory, American Foreign Policy, Nuclear proliferation
Clearly this is groundless and serves no purpose that is in the public interest. It is highly unusual for a sitting president, or even a challenger, to actively undermine the vote before it is even decided.
It's mostly important because it undermines perceptions of the legitimacy of the election, rather than any actual impact it might have.  It's unlikely that many voters will follow the advice, but it seeds the idea that some sort of chaos may follow the election and prompt some sort of intervention in response.
Important not because it is likely to happen, but because it casts the election in further uncertainty.
While this is not the worst thing that has been said about either group recently, anything identifying American citizens in hostile terms from a military standpoint is cause for concern, especially if it is identifying members of the media. Demonizing journalists is a commonality among authoritarian regimes.
While it is unusual, one could imagine legitimate reasons for doing this during a pandemic.  It deserves skepticism, however, given how much of a windfall it would be for the Trump administration for a vaccine to be approved as an October surprise.
What's abnormal about this is how long PR has had to wait.  The timing so close to the election cannot be coincidence.
The "event" questions do all seem to be about the actions of one side. Is this your intention? If so, doesn't this undermine the stated goal of the survey?
It is not that the Occupant interrupts Biden. It is that he is afforded any publicity at all, and that he is not called to account for his lies and crimes.
By stating falsehoods and lies repeatedly, there is a high probability that people will not turn out to vote. See Bethany Albertson's recent work on this.
This is beyond the powers of the Presidency. Congress needs to act.
One of the top values in the American constitution is the right to peaceful protest. Further, the US has had a long history of civilian rule of the military. It is dangerous, undemocratic and probably illegal for the military to label these human beings "adversaries." It is another factor in the de-humanization of women, Black folks, BIPOC, poor people, immigrants, and others who do not serve the current Occupant's agenda.
This is important but not for the reasons cited by the Occupant. The US government has the obligation to protect the American people from the illegal surveillance of US citizens on behalf of the Chinese state, as well as additional national security threats. The way the Occupant has framed it is frivolous, self-serving and ineffectual.
Many Presidents have opinions on the number of justices needed on the Supreme Court, and these issues have changed over time. They do not, however, include the shameless power grab on behalf of Mitch McConnell and the falsely-named "originalists" who seek to consolidate authoritarian power and oppress US citizens.
The Census is one of the main forms of identification for the distribution of resources in the country, and thus both a source for and potential solution for inequality among American citizens.
It is dangerous for the Justice Department to make up new rules to suit the Occupant's personal greed and ambition, to the detriment of democracy and the American people. Barr must be impeached. As was 45.
The importance is limited by the fact that Trump can't get away with it.  If he could, he would.
The normality standard is questionable, and set only in terms of Merrick Garland, which is a small sample.
I don't think it is normal to nominate and confirm a SCOTUS weeks before the election, but I think the president is entitled to do so. Had it been a democrat, chances are s/he would have try to do the same. Delaying a nomination for almost a year like Mitch McConnell did, that is abnormal and undemocratic. It is also an extremely serious form of "hardball."
Shameful!  Instead, any/all of our national leaders should speak out against any/all racist or otherwise bigoted group-- or, at the least, NOT encourage them!
Of course political connections to the WH have always existed and will continue, but such blatant, purely political functions of any political party there should not occur.
FBI headquarters didn't suffer from COVID while too many people and small businesses have suffered greatly; any COVID relief bill should address those individuals and entities that have suffered from it.  Further, the FBI building would not be nearly so costly if it were MOVED to a different location.
The stimulus talks simply shouldn't "break down" because of their importance. He should see to it that his lackeys stay at the table until they reach a workable outcome.
This is part of his over-all attack on our elections.  He has repeatedly spoken of voter fraud without offering real evidence of fraud and has repeatedly criticized sound voting processes.  He has even suggested that the outcome should be challenged if he is not the winner in 2020.
Our military should typically not be involved in domestic matters.  When it is necessary for our military to interact with citizens, it should not be negatively biased against journalists or peaceful protesters.
This is pure ignorance regarding blame; funds should no more be withheld for those fires than if the state's losses/damages/need for assistance had been from tornadoes or a hurricane!
Thanks.  These are trying times for our people, our country and our political system!
This is another example of the partisan use of the DOJ.
This makes it harder for members of Congress to be aware of executive branch actions.
This is the president interfering in the operation for private business for little discernible public justification.
This reinforces the idea that the Supreme Court, particularly a favorable Court, has a significant role to play in election disputes, which it does not.
It matters symbolically, but will have limited practical effect.
This is much less concerning than the use of private individuals to act as "poll watchers."  In a functioning democracy, this would not necessarily be concerning.
This has long-term consequences for representation.
It violates the rule of law. The U.S. is not supposed to be a personalist autocracy.
Pressuring business for political reasons is right out of the autocrats' /cronists' playbook.
Politicizing science on health/health care has gotten us over 210k dead.
Given all of the efforts at voter suppression (unofficial drop boxes; tweets telling people to "vote twice") and a priori claims about fraud/riggins/etc., this election is bound to end up in court.
There seems to be a major effort to delegitimize elections, and to discourage  non-DJT voters from casting ballots.
What would you say if you saw it (giving shout-outs to armed white supremacist gangs) in another country?
Making evidence-free accusations is so profoundly corrosive of the kind of trust needed to make democracy run properly. Fraud is corrosive too, of course, but claims of fraud need to be backed by concrete evidence.
His executive orders on this mean little. It's "The Truman Show" come to life.
Hard to measure its importance without the context of what Puerto Rico still needs for hurricane recovery.
I expect national Republicans to exploit racial grievance and, more broadly, to act as a white identity party. Unlike much of what the current president has done, this decision can be readily reversed by a new administration.
Very dangerous for a leader in any democracy to call in the question the validity of elections, when the allegations are simply baseless. This is fundamental to the legitimacy of our basic institutions.
More important that the talks broke down, given the consequences for so many.
Despicable, but hard to know how seriously it was taken.
Given that we are in the midst of a deadly pandemic, this is deeply troubling.
The timing of the announced aid (presumably to help rebuild after the hurricanes) is very suspicious. Trump was trying to win a few votes from Puerto Ricans in Florida. Let's see if any of the aid actually gets there.