HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » pampango » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 48 Next »

pampango

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Xenia, OH
Member since: Tue Sep 19, 2006, 04:46 PM
Number of posts: 24,216

Journal Archives

Is the past or present better for people like you? Trump/Clinton supporters differ.



Overall, voters remain divided over whether life for people like them in the country today is better or worse compared with 50 years ago: 36% say that life today is better for people like them, 47% say it is worse and 13% say it is about the same.

But these perceptions are starkly different among supporters of the two major party candidates: About eight-in-ten (81%) Trump backers say that things have gotten worse for people like them compared with 50 years ago. Just 19% of Clinton supporters say the same. A 59% majority of Clinton supporters say life is better for people like them; only 11% of Trump voters think this.

As was the case earlier this year, there are significant demographic differences in these views. About half (51%) of black voters say life is better today for people like them and just 20% say it is worse (23% say it is about the same). By contrast, white voters are more likely to say life has gotten worse (52%) than say it has gotten better (33%); 12% say it is little different. Hispanics are divided on this question: 40% say life is better for people like them than it was a half-century ago, while about as many (39%) say it is worse (17% say it is about the same).

Overall, voters’ opinions on this question are little changed since March, but a wide partisan divide has grown wider: In March, 66% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters said that life was better for people like them 50 years ago; today, 72% express this view. At the same time, Democrats’ assessments have become more positive: In March, 48% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters thought that life is better today compared with 50 years ago; currently 55% say this.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/3-views-of-the-country-and-feelings-about-growing-diversity/

Given that the republican party is largely white, it is not surprising that Trump supporters are the most negative when comparing their status now compared to 50 years ago. Since Democrats are more diverse, it is not surprising that their attitudes are different.

"Trump's deal was straight up: He would secure the government programs — Social Security, Medicare —

that benefit older, whiter tea party voters while chasing younger, browner Americans away from the public trough. He would even clear out of the country anyone who failed to prove citizenship."

The tea party has gone to meet its maker



The tea party is now indistinguishable from the Trump Party. Liberals have had a rollicking good time watching Trump peel the Indian paint off the erstwhile rebels. Brian Beutler of the New Republic routinely responds to racist outbursts among Trump supporters with a mock lament for the "economic anxiety" purportedly driving their allegiance to Trump.

Competing arguments that Trump supporters are motivated by declining economic prospects versus racial resentment are not mutually exclusive. But a deep analysis of Trump supporters released last week by Gallup shows that the economic angle is the more convoluted and uncertain one.

The evidence "is mixed as to how economic hardship affects Trump's popularity," wrote economist Jonathan Rothwell. "Racial isolation and lack of exposure to Hispanic immigrants raise the likelihood of Trump support. Meanwhile, Trump support falls as exposure to trade and immigration increases, which is the opposite of the predicted relationship."

That last part was the bomb. Trump's signature issues are trade and immigration. Yet his supporters appear less exposed to negative effects from trade and immigration than people who don't support him. Rothwell's findings didn't eliminate economic anxiety as a factor in support for Trump.

http://www.standard.net/National-Commentary/2016/08/16/teaparty-DonaldTrump-immigration-trade-Hispanics-column-Wilkinson

So there is an inverse relationship between a person's exposure to trade and immigration and their support for Trump. Even though trade and immigration are key elements of Trump's spiel, the more a person is exposed to them - the LESS likely they are to support Trump.

It makes one think that other factors explain the support from tea party types for Trump.

Pew: repubs worry most about immigration and terrorism. Dems - inequality and the environment.



On the list of seven issues, immigration and terrorism stand out as especially serious problems among Trump supporters; nearly two-thirds cite each as very big problems in the country (66% immigration, 65% terrorism).

Clinton supporters express far less concern about both issues. Just 17% describe immigration as a very big national problem; 40% say it is a moderately big problem, while 42% say it is either a small problem or not a problem at all. In addition, only about a third of Clinton supporters (36%) say terrorism is a very big problem in the country.

Trump supporters also are more likely than Clinton backers to say that crime (52% vs. 42%) and the availability of good-paying jobs (48% vs. 33%) are very big problems.

Far more Clinton supporters (70%) than Trump supporters (31%) view the gap between rich and poor as a major problem in the country. And while 43% of Clinton supporters rate the condition of the environment as a very big problem, just 16% of Trump supporters say this. While 43% of Trump backers say the condition of the environment is a moderately big problem, 38% say it is a small problem or not a problem.

http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/4-how-voters-view-the-countrys-problems/

Trump supports see immigration as our greatest problem followed closely by terrorism. Clinton supporters see inequality and the environment as the biggest issues. None of that surprises anyone here but it is good to see it confirmed by the Pew study.

Thanks for posting this, Eugene. "There is growing frustration in rebel-held Aleppo that grief

at the plight of Omran has not been accompanied by rage at those who dropped the bomb."

The image brought renewed global focus to the suffering of civilians in the eastern part of Syria’s largest city, living under near-siege conditions and a constant bombardment of barrel bombs dropped from government aircraft and more targeted Russian airstrikes.

Civilian casualties from Russian bombings have overtaken civilian deaths at the hands of Isis for the first time, the activist group, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said last week.

By ignoring the political and military context of Omran’s plight, they are cheapening his suffering and that of all the people who have chosen to stay on in opposition-held areas of Aleppo, or have not had an opportunity to leave.

“We don’t want the world to know we are dying as civilians here, that is not enough. We want the world to know who is killing us, who is targeting us,” said an English-language professor at the university, whose six-month-old daughter was born in one of the city’s few remaining hospitals. “If people in Britain and United States know that Russia and Assad are doing this, they will help us, they will do something with their government to help us. But if they don’t know, what kind of help can we get?”

Trump blasts EU and NATO; praises Brexit.

Donald Trump: EU was formed 'to beat the US at making money'
The US presidential hopeful has renewed his criticism of the EU and defended his attacks on Nato allies


Donald Trump has claimed that the European Union was created to “beat the United States when it comes to making money” in an interview with NBC News. Speaking to Chuck Todd, whom the Republican nominee has repeatedly berated as “sleepy-eyed”, Trump also said of the EU “the reason that it got together was like a consortium so that it could compete with the United States”.

The European Union was founded as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952 in an effort to promote strong cross-border ties in Europe and avoid future wars. It has since evolved to a customs union and eventually to the transnational entity devoted to removing internal trade barriers, building a common market and a fiscal union. Its development and growth has been repeatedly supported by the United States under presidents of both parties.

Trump’s anti-European statements come after the Republican nominee repeatedly praised Brexit, the vote by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, including in a press conference in the day after the referendum held at a Trump golf course in Scotland.

Trump also called both the World Trade Organization and Nafta “disasters”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/donald-trump-eu-was-formed-to-beat-the-us-at-making-money

Trump's and Obama's Views on Globalization Reflect Broader Gap

Donald Trump's vow to rip up free trade agreements and return America to "economic independence" is not only a strident counter to President Obama's calls for a more interconnected world, but an illustration of a broader debate between advocates of globalization and those who oppose it.

"You can look at Trump's campaign as one big push-back against globalization, and the Britain vote too," said Daniel Cox, director of research at the Public Religion Research Institute, a non-partisan group that analyzes cultural, religious and political trends in the U.S.

In a speech last week, Trump criticized a "leadership class that worships globalism over Americanism." ... a backlash, particularly on the right, to a long-held belief by party elites in the U.S. and Europe that open borders, pro-immigration policies, increased trade and overall international cooperation are the best ways to improve the global economy. ... The next day, Obama, in a speech following a meeting with other North American leaders in Canada, warned that pulling out of trade deals "is the wrong medicine for dealing with inequality."

Obama seems aware that his side is not winning the globalization argument. Even as he continually criticizes Trump, the president is acknowledging the concerns of voters here and abroad who have doubts about globalization. ... He added, "And politicians — some sincere, and some entirely cynical — will tap that anger and fear, harkening back to bygone days of order and predictability and national glory, arguing that we must rebuild walls and disengage from a chaotic world, or rid ourselves of the supposed ills brought on by immigrants — all in order to regain control of our lives."

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/trump-s-obama-s-views-globalization-reflect-broader-gap-n601901

Interesting to see the difference of the Obama and Trump worldviews.

Which version of Brexit will Conservatives choose? An election to approve the plan?

Or just let the Tories pick their prime minister, formulate a Brexit plan then implement it on their own?

Britain must have a general election before activating article 50

The government not only finds itself without leadership, it has no plan, no consensus and no clue about what it wants to do in the future. The only thing it agrees on is that the UK should leave the EU. But how, when and to what end all remain unanswered. It enjoys a mandate to quit, but no mandate as to how this should be done.

This is partly the result of the unforgivable cynicism of a Brexit campaign that refused to tell voters what comes next. But it is also a consequence of contradictory opinions: the hedge fund owners who financed the campaign want to turn the City into a low–regulation Dubai; Boris Johnson wanted to open Britain to far-flung continents; Michael Gove wants to close Britain against incomers; and most Brexiteers witter about maintaining access to the single market while not being subject to its rules, apparently oblivious to the glaring contradiction.

This debilitating cocktail of hubris, incompetence and dishonesty must be overcome if the country is to move forward.

First, each Conservative leadership candidate must set out, in detail, what they think our future relationship with Europe should be. Second, the new prime minister, to be announced on 9 September, should immediately publish a white paper setting out a full plan. And third, he or she must then seek a democratic mandate for their plan in an early general election.

The notion that it should be left to Conservative members to handpick a new prime minister for what in effect will be a new government pursuing new priorities is absurd.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/03/britain-general-election-before-article-50

One one hand, Conservatives won the Brexit referendum vote and don't have to call a general election. One could argue that they should be permitted to choose the Brexit plan they prefer and go with it. The "low-regulation Dubai" plan, the Boris Johnson "neoliberal fantasy island" plan, the Michael Gove "build a figurative wall" plan or a 'free trade, no rules' plan?

OTOH, one could argue that which plan is chosen by Conservatives should be voted upon by more than just the Conservative majority in parliament. Interesting times ahead for the UK.

I think someone like Trump could do a number on globalization since it is partly the result

of human efforts to tie countries together rather than push them apart. (Of course, it is also the result of modern technology, communications and travel.)

Krugman wrote that there was a mini-globalization period during Woodrow Wilson's era that was reversed by the republicans that followed him in the 1920's. They raised tariffs, restricted immigration and ended that period of globalization by their efforts in favor of a period of nationalism and isolationism. Then FDR came along and promoted internationalism and set up the international organizations that have played a major role in the modern form of globalization.

Much of the republican base, which Trump tapped into, wants to do what 1920's era republicans did and get rid of much that FDR created.

Of course, modern communications and travel make the world a 'smaller' place no matter what any politician does compared to the 1920's. But someone like Trump could destroy much of the infrastructure of globalization and reverse it, at least for a time. Eventually the world would probably get back on the track that it was pre-Trump, just like it did under FDR, but that might take a while.

In Brexit Britain the elites will run amok (conservative elites) "People will learn the hard way."

A week on from the referendum that was going to take back democracy from the elites, and we still don’t know exactly who will be taking back democracy for us. But it will be one representative of the elites or another. At the moment, it looks like Michael Gove or Theresa May will be their political face. Unless someone else in the Tory party offers them a better deal between now and September. The kind of Brexit Britain gets will be decided by those people.

Instead, we will be continuing as we have been for decades, pandering to the elites we’re supposed to be escaping. The elites decide how much they are prepared to contribute in tax towards the social and physical infrastructure they operate in. They’d rather do it privately, bleeding interest for their chiselling loans out of the public sector. They will always have free movement for themselves, and the threat that they will make use of it. It’s so easy for them to get their way.

These men want ordinary people to be angry, because angry people make errors of judgment, blaming each other instead of the elites that plunder ideas about equality, fairness, freedom and democracy for their own ends. Britain. You voted for this. Now, once again, get ready to be told that There Is No Alternative.

No one can predict what sort of outcome might emerge from his capricious gamble, and it doesn’t look like we’ll even get to vote again until all of that is done and dusted. Europe doesn’t crush our democracy. It protects what’s left of it. Now that protection is gone and our limited, gestural, dysfunctional democracy is all we have.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/01/brexit-britain-elites-run-amok

Guardian factcheck: The lies Trump told this week: from US trade policies to his own campaign

Trade

“When subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the politicians do nothing.” – 28 June, Monessen, Pennsylvania

In 2015, five US steelmakers complained that Chinese producers, boosted by government subsidies, were flouting import rules. This spring the Obama administration struck the Chinese companies with a 522% tariff. The US International Trade Commission also announced an investigation into aluminum imports, hinting at more tariffs on the Chinese.

Our founding fathers understood trade much better than our current politicians, believe me.” – 28 June, Monessen, Pennsylvania

The men who led the young United States in the 1790s and early 1800s likely did understand trade better than at least one current politician, but they understood it in a world of slavery, plantations and New England shipping. Even then, Trump’s trade ideas would not have necessarily been welcome; the founders had vicious disagreements over it.

But by the late 19th century tariffs had become tools of powerful tycoons, who could impose high prices on goods on the poor and middle class. Their power was reduced by the income tax and other reforms of the early 20th century. Automation and globalization have further complicated trade in the 100 years since.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/donald-trump-fact-check-trade-immigration-campaign?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Trump is an experienced and competent liar. The Guardian recognizes it.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 48 Next »