2018 is a congressional election year in the United States, and President Donald Trump is urging his supporters to get motivated to vote as both parties prepare for November. "The people who voted for us become complacent a little bit, they are happy," Trump told supporters during a recent speech on tax reform in Cincinnati. "They sort of take it for granted, they sit back and then they get clobbered because the other people are desperate and they get out, and they have more energy." Trump predicted that Republicans will do better than expected in November when all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are at stake and 34 of the 100 Senate seats. "I think because of what we've done, because of the tremendous success we've had, I have a feeling that we are going to do incredibly well in '18, and I have to say this, history is not on our side," he said. The president is right. History is not on his side. Midterms are typically unkind to the president's party, which on average loses about 30 House seats and a handful of Senate seats. The losses are worse if the president's approval rating is below 50 percent, which could be the case this year. Trump's approval rating has ticked up in recent weeks, but the average has him just above 40 percent, not a strong position with a midterm looming. "You know, you have a very unpopular president. And if Democrats take a broad path, they should win lots and lots of seats," said Jim Kessler of Third Way, a center-left advocacy and research organization. Gallup has noted historically that presidents with an approval rating above 50 percent lose an average of 14 House seats in midterms, while those below 40 percent can expect to lose about 36 seats. Democrats need to gain 24 seats in the House and two seats in the Senate to regain the majority in both chambers. After the end of the story, Trump is probably - worried - not enough information - optimistic - happy
worried

There is no hiding from the impact agenda. The impact weighting of the Research Excellence Framework has been increased for 2021, and more recently the UK Government announced a new funding stream for knowledge exchange. But achieving impact isn't easy, especially for researchers early in their careers. If you ever have a spare week, or ten, it's worth reading through some of the 6,637 REF impact case studies on the HEFCE website. There are some brilliant and fascinating examples of how researchers have achieved impact, but what strikes me most is how different impact looks across different subjects. At the risk of being flippant, among many of the medical or technological examples there is a familiar pattern and a clear route to impact: make breakthrough; license drug/technology; save lives/millions. For social and political science (not to mention economics, languages, education, philosophy, etc.) the route to impact is much more fragmented. Among the 97 sociology case studies, for example, impact comes from numerous briefings of government officials and parliamentarians, before the academics join "networks" and "committees" discussing their research and wider issues. Their research is covered by national media, they meet even more people practitioners or third sector campaigning organisations to pass on their knowledge. And, after all that, and often a good deal more, sometimes there is a policy or practice change that can be pointed to as a direct impact, sometimes not. Central to much of the impact is "access". Prominent and experienced academics are more likely to get on the committees, know the right journalists and government officials, and have links into third sector organisations, etc. I worked with Professor Sir John Curtice, of election night fame, for a number of years. He didn't need much support. I advised and facilitated, but after 30 years in the game he knew Whitehall (and Holyrood) inside and out and they knew him. But many researchers, especially at the start of their careers, don't... When does the author say that researchers can make millions? - during - after making a breakthrough - not enough information - before making a breakthrough
after making a breakthrough

The White House said Monday that President Donald Trump "doesn't believe any of these accusations" made by adult film actress Stormy Daniels that she had a one-night affair with the future U.S. leader in 2006 and five years later was threatened to keep quiet about their alleged liaison. Trump spokesman Raj Shah rejected any suggestion that Trump had engaged in wrongdoing because his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, paid the porn star $130,000 from his own funds in hush money shortly before the 2016 presidential election. "False charges are settled out of court all the time," said Shah, who faced a barrage of questions from reporters after a lengthy Daniels interview aired Sunday night on 60 Minutes, a CBS News show that drew its biggest ratings in a decade for the spectacle. "He's consistently denied these accusations," Shah said of Trump. The spokesman said the 39-year-old Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was "inconsistent" because she has at various times denied she had a sexual encounter with Trump, but now claims she is telling the truth that she met up with him at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada. Shah also dismissed Daniels' claim that in 2011, when she was on her way to a fitness class in Las Vegas with her infant daughter, she was approached by a stranger who threatened her. "A guy walked up on me and said to me, 'Leave Trump alone. Forget the story,' " Daniels told journalist Anderson Cooper. "And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, 'That's a beautiful little girl. It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom.' And then he was gone." Trump has yet to comment directly on Daniels' story. However, he posted a Twitter comment Monday that seemed to allude to the controversy. Daniels says the Las Vegas incident occurred shortly after she first tried to sell her story about her encounter with Trump to a tabloid magazine. She said the incident made her fearful for years and that she thought she was doing the right thing when she accepted $130,000 from Trump... Why did Cohen pay the $130,000? - not enough information - She did some work for him - To keep Daniels quiet - She loaned him the money previously
To keep Daniels quiet