Of the forty* men who have been elected to the office of U.S. president, the average weight of U.S. presidents has been approximately 189lbs (86kg). The weight range has been between 122lbs (55kg) and 332lbs (151kg), meaning that the heaviest president, William Howard Taft, was almost three times as heavy as the lightest president, James Madison (who was also the shortest president). Although Taft weighed over 300lbs during his presidency in 1909, he did implement a fitness and dietary regimen in the 1920s, that helped him lose almost 100lbs (45kg) before his death due to cardiovascular disease in 1930. Increase over time The tallest ever president, Abraham Lincoln (who was 6'4"), actually weighed less than the presidential average, and also less than the average adult male in the U.S. in 2018. It is important to note that the average weight of U.S. males has gradually increased in the past two decades, with some studies suggesting that it may have even increased by 15lbs (7kg) since the 1980s. The presidential averages have also increased over time, as the first ten elected presidents had an average weight of 171lbs (78kg), while the average weight of the ten most recent is 194lbs (88kg). Recent presidents In recent years, the heaviest president has been Donald Trump, who weighed 237lbs (108kg) during his first term in office; however medical reports published in June 2020 show that he gained 7lbs (3kg) during this term. There was also controversy in 2018, when it appeared that Trump's official height had been increased from 6'2" to 6'3", which many speculated was done to prevent him from being categorized as "obese" (according to his BMI). In the past half century, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton were the only other presidents to have weighed more than the presidential average, although both men were also 6'2" (188cm) tall. President Joe Biden weighs below the presidential average, at 177lbs (81kg).

The average height of the 45 men who have served as the President of the United States is approximately 180cm (5'11"); this is roughly five centimeters (two inches) taller than the average U.S. male in 2020. Abraham Lincoln has the distinction of being the tallest U.S. president in history, at 193cm (6'4"), while James Madison was the shortest (and lightest) U.S. president at 163cm (5'4"). US presidents are getting taller Of the ten most recent presidents, only Jimmy Carter has been shorter than the presidential average, while none of the presidents who have served since the beginning of the twentieth century have been shorter than the national average. Since Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, George W. Bush and Joe Biden are the only U.S. president to have been shorter than six feet tall; by just half an inch. Trump height controversy Former President Donald Trump made headlines in 2018, when his official height increased from 6'2" (the height from all previously-existing records, including his 2012 drivers license) to 6'3"*. Many in the media speculated that this was to prevent him from being classified as obese according to his body mass index. A number of photos also circulated on social media showing Trump next to (and visibly shorter than) a number of athletes who are officially 6'3", while photos of him standing next to Barack Obama were used to show that he may be closer to his predecessor's height, at 6'1". Nonetheless, Trump's medical report from June 3. 2020, shows that his official height remained at 6'3".

The 45 men who have served as the President of the United States (officially there have been 46 as Grover Cleveland is counted twice) have fathered, adopted or allegedly fathered at least 190 children. Of these 190, 169 were conceived naturally, eleven were adopted and there are ten reasonable cases of alleged paternity (possibly more). Today, there are 34 living presidential children; the oldest of which is Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, daughter of Lyndon B. and Lady Bird Johnson; the youngest is Barron Trump, son of Donald and Melania Trump. John Tyler is the president who fathered the most children, having fifteen children over two marriages (and allegedly fathering more with slaves), while his successor, James K. Polk, remains the only U.S. president never to have fathered or adopted any known children. Coincidentally, as of November 2020, the U.S.' tenth president, John Tyler, has two grandsons who are still alive today, despite the fact that he was born in 1790.

The First Family

The president, their children and spouse are collectively known as the First Family of the United States; the current first family is made up of President Joe Biden, First Lady Jill Biden, as well as their children, Hunter and Ashley. Two of President Biden's children died before he was elected to office; his son Beau died of cancer in 2015, while his one year old daughter Naomi was killed in a car accident in 1972, along with Biden's wife, Neilia (who was also Beau and Hunter's mother). Two presidents' sons have gone on to assume the presidency themselves; these were John Quincy Adams and George W. Bush respectively, while one presidential grandson, Benjamin Harrison, later became president.

Alleged children

Three U.S. presidents have allegedly fathered illegitimate children with slaves. The most well-known and substantial of these allegations relates to Thomas Jefferson and his slave, Sally Hemings; who was also the half-sister of Jefferson's wife Martha (with whom he had already fathered six children). Following Martha's passing in 1782, its is believed that the future-president would then go on to have a relationship with Hemings that spanned four decades and saw the birth of as many as eight children between 1790 and 1808. Hemings, thought to have been 14 years old at the beginning of the relationship (Jefferson was 44), and her children remained enslaved to Jefferson until his death in 1826. DNA tests conducted in recent years have confirmed a genetic connection between the Hemings and Jefferson families, and the majority of historians accept that Thomas Jefferson was the father of at least six of Hemings' children. Less substantial claims have also been levelled at John Tyler, with political opponents claiming that he fathered several children with slaves in the years following his first wife's death; although these claims have been widely disregarded by historians, with little investigation into their validity. It is alleged that William Henry Harrison also fathered at least six children with one of his slaves, Dilsia, however these claims are anecdotal and have been disregarded or ignored by historians. In spite of this, to this day, there are some African-American families in the U.S. who claim to be the descendants of both Harrison and Tyler.

It is generally accepted that two other presidents, Grover Cleveland and Warren G. Harding, fathered children through extramarital affairs. It is likely that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock in 1874; even paying child support to the mother, acknowledging that he could have been the father. When the child's mother accused Cleveland of rape, he had her institutionalized to discredit these accusations, and the child was taken away and raised by Cleveland's friends. The issue came to light nationally during the 1884 election campaign, but Cleveland still emerged victorious. In 1927, four years after his death in office, it came to light that Warren G. Harding had fathered a child out of wedlock a year before winning the 1920 election. The child was conceived during one of his two long-term, extramarital affairs, and Harding did pay the mother child support, although he kept the affair and child a secret. Harding died before the child's fourth birthday, his family dismissed these claims as rumors, claiming that he was infertile; however, DNA tests confirmed that the child was his in 2015. While there have been numerous accusations of presidents' infidelity in the past century, particularly relating to John F. Kennedy and Donald Trump; Trump is the only president since Harding to have had a child out of wedlock (although the couple did get married two months after the birth of their daughter, Tiffany).

List price: $25.00

NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • From the veteran political journalist and 60 Minutes correspondent, a deep dive into the history, evolution, and current state of the American presidency—and how we can make the job less impossible and more productive.

“This is a great gift to our sense of the actual presidency, a primer on leadership.”—Ken Burns

Imagine you have just been elected president. You are now commander-in-chief, chief executive, chief diplomat, chief legislator, chief of party, chief voice of the people, first responder, chief priest, and world leader. You’re expected to fulfill your campaign promises, but you’re also expected to solve the urgent crises of the day. What’s on your to-do list? Where would you even start? What shocks aren’t you thinking about?

The American presidency is in trouble. It has become overburdened, misunderstood, almost impossible to do. “The problems in the job unfolded before Donald Trump was elected, and the challenges of governing today will confront his successors,” writes John Dickerson. After all, the founders never intended for our system of checks and balances to have one superior Chief Magistrate, with Congress demoted to “the little brother who can’t keep up.”

In this eye-opening book, John Dickerson writes about presidents in history such a Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Eisenhower, and and in contemporary times, from LBJ and Reagan and Bush, Obama, and Trump, to show how a complex job has been done, and why we need to reevaluate how we view the presidency, how we choose our presidents, and what we expect from them once they are in office. Think of the presidential campaign as a job interview. Are we asking the right questions? Are we looking for good campaigners, or good presidents? Once a candidate gets the job, what can they do to thrive? Drawing on research and interviews with current and former White House staffers, Dickerson defines what the job of president actually entails, identifies the things that only the president can do, and analyzes how presidents in history have managed the burden. What qualities make for a good president? Who did it well? Why did Bill Clinton call the White House “the crown jewel in the American penal system”? The presidency is a job of surprises with high stakes, requiring vision, management skill, and an even temperament. Ultimately, in order to evaluate candidates properly for the job, we need to adjust our expectations, and be more realistic about the goals, the requirements, and the limitations of the office.

As Dickerson writes, “Americans need their president to succeed, but the presidency is set up for failure. It doesn’t have to be.”

PRAISE

“Dickerson has a gift for effectively mixing anecdote and history, as he did so well in Whistlestop: My Favorite Stories from Presidential Campaign History, and he does it again in his rich chronicle of the American presidency. The qualities required of a good candidate differ from that of a great president, and Dickerson makes a convincing case for reforming the job, which is radically different from how it was conceived by the founders.” —The National Book Review

“You should read [The Hardest Job in the World] if you want to understand what the presidency should and should not be. Dickerson . . . brilliantly explains how the presidency grew and evolved and accumulated power, how Trump has warped it, and how it can be fixed.” —Business Insider

“Brilliantly chronicles what the American presidency has meant, what it could mean . . . With wit, sweep, and unfailing generosity, The Hardest Job in the World is a book for our times, informed and delightful and definitely not to be missed.” —Brenda Wineapple, author of The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation

“Superb . . . a captivating read . . . I found myself sometimes nodding in agreement so vigorously that I worried about hurting my neck. . . . A wonderful contribution to understanding what is, for sure, the hardest job in the world.”—Robert Gates, former United States Secretary of Defense

“This is a wonderful ‘inside’ look at the difficult act of being the president of the United States. It is told with grace and insight by a man who not only knows his subject—he understands it. This is a great gift to our sense of the actual presidency, a primer on leadership, and, of course, of necessity, a reflection on failure.”—Ken Burns, award-winning filmmaker

“From one of our closest students of the presidency, John Dickerson’s thoughtful, learned, original, shrewd, comprehensive, up-to-the-minute book, full of wisdom and personal observations, could not be more needed than at this moment in American history.” —Michael Beschloss, bestselling author of Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America 1789–1989

“Evenhanded and insightful . . . Drawing on illuminating interviews with former White House officials and presidential historians, Dickerson packs the book with intriguing arcana and colorful quotes. . . . This entertaining history rises above the political fray to cast even the most maligned chief executives in a new light.”—Publishers Weekly

About the author: John Dickerson is 60 Minutes correspondent. Prior to that, he was a co-host of CBS This Morning, the anchor of Face the Nation, and CBS News’s chief Washington correspondent. Dickerson is also a contributing writer to The Atlantic, co-host of Slate‘s Political Gabfest podcast, and host of the Whistlestop podcast. Dickerson won the Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on the Presidency as Slate‘s chief political correspondent. Dickerson covered the White House for Time during his twelve years at the magazine. The 2020 presidential campaign is the seventh he has covered.

Narrated By: John Dickerson ISBN: 9781984883933 Published: Random House Audio June 16, 2020 Length: 944 Minutes

©2020 John Dickerson (P)2020 Random House Audio

This poll, fielded January 26, 1998, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President Bill Clinton, particularly in light of claims that he had had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Respondents were queried as to how closely they had followed the story of the alleged affair, how important an issue they thought it was, whether it would interfere with the president's effectiveness in office and his ability to achieve his policy goals for the current year, whether they believed Clinton's denial of the affair given earlier in the day, and whether that response had made the situation better or worse for him. Opinions were elicited concerning who was to blame for the situation--the president or his political enemies, whether Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation of the president was impartial or partisan, and whether Clinton should resign from office, or whether discussion of his resignation should be deferred until all of the facts were in. Respondents were also asked how the Lewinsky story would affect the upcoming presidential State of the Union speech, whether they were planning to watch the speech, whether they were more likely to watch it in light of the Lewinsky matter, and whether it would be better for the speech to be postponed. Background information on respondents includes age, race, sex, education, political party, political orientation, recent voting history, age of children in the household, and family income.

This statistic shows the average annual change in real GDP per capita in the United States from President Hoover to Obama, as of 2011. The biggest economic growth happened during Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency. The Real Gross Domestic Product per capita increased by 5.25 percent each year.

Additional information on President Barack Obama’s first term economic policy performance

“It’s the economy, stupid” as the now famous saying by former President Bill Clinton goes is often used to demonstrate the importance continuants place on the economy’s performance. Appointed to President of the United States in 2008, President Obama entered the job in the early stages of a global economic crisis. The unemployment rate in the United States since 1990 demonstrates that Obama oversaw a reduction in unemployment rate since an initially sharp increase to over 9 percent in 2009 and 2010. Prior to the reduction, public approval of President Obama and the Republicans in congress in handling the economy shows that the public’s trust in Obama waned from 61 percent in February 2009 to 42 percent in November 2011. The fluctuation of America’s economy meant that Obama’s first term saw him reach an average of 76 thousand private sector jobs created per month as of June 2012, leaving him sixth in private sector job creation on the list of post-war presidents.

As leader of the most economically influential country on the planet, praise and criticism of Obama’s economic performance is also a global issue. In 2012, opinion on Obama’s management of global economic issues by country demonstrates the variety in opinion held in and across countries. While countries such as Britain and Germany whose economies appeared to be recovering held Obama’s economic policy in a positive light, opinion was more negative in Egypt and Greece were the economic situation was less optimistic.

This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of political, social, and economic issues. Conducted by ABC News in August of 1992, the poll focused on topics such as the effect of Ross Perot's withdrawal from the presidential race on voting preferences, evaluations of the current presidential and vice-presidential candidates, perceived responsibility for current economic conditions, and the federal government's lack of action on major problems facing the nation, the economy, and the budget deficit. Respondents were asked to rate the likelihood of their voting in the upcoming presidential election in light of their personal daily schedules and to indicate their voting preferences and strength of support for Bush, Clinton, and Perot. The poll also assessed how favorably respondents viewed the current presidential and vice-presidential candidates, and whether the respondent was satisfied that each candidate had the honesty, integrity, and ability to understand the problems of the average American and to serve effectively as president. Respondents were also asked to indicate which candidate would do the best job of dealing with family values, foreign affairs, the economy, the budget deficit, bringing needed change to government, and taxes. Bush and Clinton were also evaluated with regard to whether they had a vision for the future of the country, would get things done, and could be trusted in a crisis. Respondents were asked whether Bush or the Democrats in Congress were most responsible for the current economic conditions and the federal government's failure to act on major problems. With respect to the economy, respondents were asked whether they would be willing to contribute a percentage of their tax returns if it lowered the deficit by the same percent, whether the economy was getting better or worse, and which was more important: cutting federal taxes or spending more on domestic problems. Other items included respondents' assessments of the economic level of people Bush cared most about, and whether the United States should bomb Iraq if it believed Iraq was not in compliance with the terms of the cease-fire agreement. Demographic information includes political affiliation, political conservatism/liberalism, education, age, race, and gender.

Adding to national debt is an inevitable fact of being President of the United States. The extent to which debt rises under any sitting president depends not only on the policy and spending choices they have made, but also the choices made by presidents and congresses that have come before them. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush President Ronald Reagan increased the U.S. debt by around **** trillion U.S. dollars, or ****** percent. This is often attributed to "Reaganomics," in which Reagan implemented significant supply-side economic policies in which he reduced government regulation, cut taxes, and tightened the money supply. Spending increased under President George W. Bush in light of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To finance the wars, President Bush chose to borrow the money, rather than use war bonds or increase taxes, unlike previous war-time presidents. Additionally, Bush introduced a number of tax cuts, and oversaw the beginning of the 2008 financial crisis. Barack Obama President Obama inherited both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the financial crisis. The Obama administration also did not increase taxes to pay for the wars, and additionally passed expensive legislation to kickstart the economy following the economic crash, as well as the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The ACA expanded healthcare coverage to cover more than ** million more Americans through programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Though controversial at the time, more than half of Americans have a favorable view of the ACA in 2023. Additionally, he signed legislation making the W. Bush-era tax cuts permanent.

This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President Bill Clinton and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, the economy, moral questions, and the situation in the Middle East. Opinions were also sought on the United States Congress, Vice President Al Gore, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Leader Yassir Arafat, as well as South Korea and Egypt. A series of questions addressed the recent dismissal by a judge of former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit against the president, Starr's investigations into possible Clinton wrongdoing, the alleged affair between Clinton and former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, and whether Clinton had engaged in a pattern of sexual misconduct. Respondents were also asked for their opinions on federal spending on foreign aid, United States sympathies toward the Middle East, whether the United States had vital interests in Israel, the role of Jewish Americans in United States policy toward the Middle East, and the role of Irish Americans in United States policy toward Ireland. In light of the 50th anniversary of the creation of Israel, a series of questions addressed the current state of Israel and policies toward that country. Topics covered Israel's significance as the birthplace of Christianity and Judaism, its status as a democracy, United States aid to Israel, Israel as an ally to the United States, and Israeli influence over United States foreign policy. Additional subjects covered the PLO's commitment to peace, the role of Orthodox rabbis in Israel, interfaith marriages in the Jewish community, and the power of large industries in the business world. Background information on respondents includes age, race, ethnicity, sex, education, marital status, religion, political party, political orientation, voter registration and participation history, family income, age of children in household, and personal visits to Israel.

This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President Bill Clinton and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, and the economy, as well as their opinions of Vice President Al Gore and First Lady Hillary Clinton. In light of the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, those queried were asked what they believed the bombings meant for the future of terrorist attacks, and whether they believed that the United States government could do anything to reduce terrorist attacks against American citizens. A series of questions addressed the claims that President Clinton had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky and then encouraged her to lie about the relationship under oath. Topics covered the importance of the allegations to the nation, what aspect of the allegations was most bothersome, who was to blame for the current situation, whether this was a public or private matter, and whether lying was ever justified. Respondents were asked whether they thought it was necessary for Clinton to make a public statement following his upcoming August 17, 1998, testimony before the grand jury, how they thought Clinton should be punished if he did obstruct justice, and how these claims had damaged the institution of the United States presidency. Background information on respondents includes age, sex, race, ethnicity, political party, political orientation, religion, education, marital status, voter registration and participation history, and age of children in household.

Chile's political system was placed under scrutiny following the uprisings of 2019. An ongoing critique of the system is its concentration of prerogatives in presidential hands, which limits Congress in several ways and compromises the health of checks and balances. Some of the mechanisms embedded in the legislative process distinctly tilt the balance in favor of the executive branch. This piece sheds light on one arrangement, the presidential urgency, the effects of which were unclear until recently despite its presence in seven countries in the region. Following recent contributions, we argue that the prerogative may lend presidents additional leverage in shaping legislative outcomes to their preferences. The Chilean political system, as most Latin American systems, calls for more effective checks and balances, which requires more limited urgency procedures to prevent tilting the playing field. This article highlights key considerations regarding the use of urgency procedures that may inform future reforms.

The typical statewide or county-wide red/blue map (shown at left) depicts presidential voting results on a winner-take-all basis, so they award an entire geographical area to the Republican or Democratic candidate no matter how close the actual vote tally The large map in the attachment factors in both the percentage of the popular vote won by each candidate as well as the population density of each county. So, the sparsely populated Great Plains and Rocky Mountain West are shown in a much lighter color than the Eastern Seaboard, and the map as a whole is more purple than either red or blue. Perhaps the United States is less divided than some maps would lead us to believe.

This statistic shows the results of an opinion poll conducted in 2015 asking Americans to describe Donald Trump in one word. In 2015, 9.8 percent of Americans chose the words "idiot/jerk/stupid/dumb" to describe Donald Trump, 6 percent chose "arrogant" and 5.6 percent chose "crazy/nuts".

Trump's perception as a presidential candidate

In 2015, when Americans who were asked to describe Donald Trump in one word, close to 10 percent of Americans chose the words “idiot/jerk/stupid/dumb”. Other words that were used include arrogant, crazy, nuts, buffoon, clown, joke, unfavorable, egotistical, narcissist, bombastic, entertaining, untrustworthy and aggressive. Of course there were also a few positive words used to describe him, but interestingly, the majority of chosen terms was negatively connotated.

At the start of 2016, the Huffington post chose other words to describe him when they began using this disclaimer: "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S." Yet, it is exactly these characteristics which have helped him get significant attention, and which have brought to light some important underlying issues that have been churning in American society. For instance, Trump has spent less than other candidate throughout his campaign. Also, back in 2014, before Trump entered the race as a serious contender, the most important problems facing the United States were defined as dissatisfaction with government, the economy in general and immigration/illegal aliens. Trump has addressed all three. In 2016, terrorism, gun control, and racism have also gained importance. Apparently it doesn’t matter if Trump is perceived as an idiot or a racist, these characteristics do not seem to be hindering his campaign.

Fueled by Trump-inspired grievance, attempts to terrorize public officials escalate Through public records requests, several previously unreported incidents came to light — while Capitol Police officials say the agency expects to log more than 9,000 threats this year.

When Rep. Joe Neguse delivered his closing remarks in February at the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, he expressed concern about the direction of a nation that weeks earlier witnessed a homegrown attack in its capital.

“I fear, like many of you do, that the violence we saw on that terrible day may be just the beginning,” said Neguse, D-Colo., who as an impeachment manager had a nationally televised role in prosecuting Trump on a charge that he incited the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Neguse ended optimistically, offering a favorite quote from Martin Luther King Jr.: “I’ve decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”

The Senate acquitted Trump. A day later, Valentine’s Day, the propulsive threatening discourse that Neguse worried was taking root in American democracy landed on his doorstep.

A suspicious letter mailed to the congressman’s home was opened to reveal a picture of Neguse clipped from The New York Times. An unknown substance, suspected to be feces, marked an “X” over the photo, according to records kept by the police department in Lafayette, Colorado, and obtained by NBC News.

The disturbing incident, which has not been previously reported, was referred to the Capitol Police for investigation and is among the more than 9,000 threats the agency is expected to log this year. It’s also representative of the escalating security risks confronting public officials from the federal and state levels down to local school boards.

“I had one person call and say, ‘This is the gun I’m going to use. I’m going to put three bullets in the back of his head,’” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said last month on MSNBC. “You find yourself feeling uncomfortable sitting next to an open window in your home. And that’s not something I ever thought I would have to think in this country.”

Quantifying exactly how dangerous things have become is a challenge, but even elections officials — a less prominent rung of public service that is nonetheless central to democracy — are reporting threats.

And officials with the Capitol Police, the agency responsible for protecting members of Congress, have said they expect the number of threats against members to surpass the 8,600 handled in 2020 and continue a significant surge during the Trump era. In 2017, the first year of Trump’s one term, only 3,900 threats were reported. (The department is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, making specifics scarce.)

This poll, fielded June 9, 2001, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. This survey was a call-back of the May 10-12, 2001, cohort (CBS NEWS MONTHLY POLL, MAY 2001 [ICPSR 3350]), and was conducted to assess respondent views regarding the upcoming June 11, 2001, execution of Timothy McVeigh, who was sentenced to death for bombing the Oklahoma City federal building. Respondents were queried on how closely they had been following the upcoming execution and whether they favored the death penalty for McVeigh. A second set of questions asked respondents whether they agreed with the Justice Department's decision to delay the execution until June 11 so McVeigh's lawyers had time to review newly discovered FBI documents, whether these new documents would shed any new light on the case, and how often they felt legal documents in court cases were not turned over to defense lawyers, as the law requires. Respondents were also asked whether the criminal justice system had worked the way it should for a death penalty case and whether any questions about who committed the bombing would remain after McVeigh's execution. A final set of questions asked respondents whether it was a good idea for the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing and their families to be able to watch McVeigh's execution, whether everyone should be allowed to watch the execution, and whether the media had spent too much time on the upcoming execution. Opinions were also solicited on the FBI, the criminal justice system, and George W. Bush's handling of his job as president. Background information on respondents includes age, sex, race, education, religion, voter registration and participation history, political party, political orientation, Hispanic descent, marital status, age of children in household, economic investments in the stock market, and family income.

Almost 4.5 million Senegalese voters went to the ballot box in the presidential election on March 24. 2024. Ultimately, it was Bassirou Diomaye Faye who took victory, with over 2.4 million votes (a 54 percent share), although this was after a controversial buildup to what could be a pivotal election in Senegal's history. Background One year before the election, the leading opposition candidate, Ousmane Sonko, was arrested, disqualified from running, and his party, PASTEF, was ordered to dissolve. Following Sonko's arrest, there were protests across the country (as there had been following a previous arrest in 2019), where 23 people were killed and hundreds were arrested. Thereafter, PASTEF's general secretary, Bassirou Diomaye Faye, was also imprisoned, but he was not formally charged with a crime and therefore was eligible to run as the party's candidate (with Sonko's backing). The election was initially to be held in February but the incumbent president, Mackey Sall, then postponed the election until December over questions regarding the eligibility of PASTEF's candidates (Sall himself was ineligible to run after serving two terms). This postponement was met by further protests across the country before the supreme court declared this move unconstitutional. Due to the backlash, Sall rescheduled the elections for March, and both Sonko and Faye were released less than two weeks before the election. In the campaign, Faye ran on a platform of creating jobs, tackling corruption, and bringing stronger financial security. The other leading candidate, Amadou Ba, was backed by Sall and vowed to continue many of his policies, and keep Senegal open to foreign investment. The election In contrast to the buildup, the election itself went relatively smoothly, according to both domestic and international observers. Although results were not confirmed until March 29, both Ba and Sall acknowledged Faye's victory within two days of the election. In recent decades, Senegal has been one of the most stable democracies in the region, however, given the recent string of coups across the continent since 2020, there were questions over the strength of democracy in Senegal, especially in light of the tumultuous year preceding this election. Voters took to the streets in celebration on the night of the election, with many quoted as not just celebrating their candidate's victory, but also the success of the election, which was widely viewed as a victory for Senegalese democracy. Faye assumed office on April 2, 2024, with Sonko named as his Prime Minister.

In 2019, 28 percent of Americans thought that a sizable minority of elected officials behave unethically or inappropriately. In light of the impeachment process of President Donald Trump in 2019, the ethics of politicians have been called into question.

UNIDO pub. Final report on seminar for investment promotion in India (state of Gujarat) - covers: activities to ensure high quality of event (organized by Nimtech company), summary of discussions on agri-product processing, light engineering, chemicals and petrochemicals. Documentation. Questionnaires, list of participants. Statistics, diagrams. Additional references: investment, market, marketing, role of UNIDO, industrial development.

Surveys from swing states conducted the day before the 2024 election indicated an extremely close contest between Trump and Harris. Trump held a slight lead over of Harris in the majority of swing states.

This county-level map shows. Voter Turnout for the 2020 U.S. Presidential election Data from County Health Rankings.Voter turnout is the percentage of citizen population aged 18 or older who voted in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.Areas in dark blue indicate a lower voter turnout, while areas in light blue indicate a higher voter turnout. Data comes from County Health Rankings, a program of the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute with support provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.Voting collectively influences the health of our communities and healthier communities are more likely to vote. Studies show that communities with higher voter turnout tend to also have better self-reported general health, fewer chronic health conditions, a lower overall mortality rate, and less depression. Learn more about voter turnout from County Health Rankings & Roadmaps.A number of different policies can affect voter turnout, such as voter id laws, early voting, and mail-in ballots. Learn more about voter turnout strategies and initiatives.