Month: November 2020

Pro-Trump Latinos Now Being Exiled From the Progressive Coalition

zumaamericastwentyeight776940

Not only did President Donald Trump win Florida—contrary to the expectations of the perpetually chastened pollsters—but as of Wednesday morning, it looks like he won it by a slightly larger margin than he did in 2016 (51 percent versus 49 percent). This time he had significantly more support from the Latino community: The president improved his raw vote total in the pivotal Miami-Dade County, likely because he captured a larger share of the Cuban American vote.

“Hillary Clinton won the county by a 30-point margin in 2016,” notes Vox. “With 86 percent of precincts reporting, Biden’s lead had shrunk to just 9 percentage points in Miami-Dade County, and Trump had improved his margins among precincts in the county, where Cubans make up more than a quarter of the electorate by nearly 14 points,”

Trump’s messaging to Latinos—and Cubans in particular—appears to have been effective: The campaign heavily targeted Cubans with advertisements suggesting that a vote for Joe Biden was a vote for the kind of socialism that many of them fled when they came to the U.S. Biden has repeatedly and explicitly rejected socialism, though vice presidential pick Kamala Harris—someone whose inclusion on the ticket was supposed to represent outreach to minorities—might have contributed to some mixed-messaging on this issue.

Indeed, very preliminary election results—which must be taken with a grain of salt, as votes are still being counted everywhere—point to the GOP increasing its embarrassingly small share of the minority vote. The specter of pro-Trump Latinos is already prompting recriminations on the left: The New York Times’ 1619 Project author Nikole Hannah-Jones referred to Latinos as “a contrived ethnic category that artificially lumps white Cubans with Black Puerto Ricans and Indigenous Guatemalans.” Black people, unlike Latinos, experienced chattel slavery in the U.S., and thus “have been forced into a monolithic vote,” according to Hannah-Jones. Really, this point just highlights that most ethnic categories are contrived: In fact, Hannah-Jones is essentially saying that one’s politics rather than one’s skin color is what constitutes whiteness or blackness or brownness. When Biden clumsily said to a black voter, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black,” he may have inadvertently articulated many intersectional progressives’ position: Race is determined by policy views about oppression and marginalization rather than any underlying characteristic.

The project of the activist left has been to bind all oppressed people together in a struggle against racism, sexism, capitalism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, ageism, sizeism, and every other –ism imaginable. Latinos, in particular, are an example of the inherent contradictions and difficulties of this task: To fight gendered language, highly educated and otherwise privileged college activists have asserted that the gender-neutral term Latinx should replace the traditional Latino and Latina. They have won over many in the media, but very few Latinos—just 2 percent of whom actually like the term.

It appears once again that the combination of woke signaling on cultural issues and far-left economic views that looks attractive to Oberlin College ethnic studies majors is in fact unpopular with a great many minority and immigrant voters. This is something the Democratic Party will need to bear in mind, even if Biden ekes out a win.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3kTdoEm
via IFTTT

Frazzled Traders Turn To Booze, Tear Up The Script And Just Buy Everything

Frazzled Traders Turn To Booze, Tear Up The Script And Just Buy Everything

Tyler Durden

Wed, 11/04/2020 – 12:32

It was supposed to be the second worst possible outcome: a Biden presidency (which appears likely absent a SCOTUS reversal of the mail-in wave in battleground states) coupled with a Republican Senate, was said to result in “Bearish Gridlock” which according to Bank of America would be bearish for economic growth, corporate profits and financial markets (but it would be bullish for more stimulus from the Fed). In any case, as BofA sarcastically puts it, “after $21tn of monetary & fiscal stimulus in 2020, $0 of follow-on support would be deflationary.”

The reason for BofA’s dour outlook: political parties historically have used obstructionist tactics when out of power to thwart key legislation, most often through the “rediscovery” of commitments to “fiscal discipline”. As an example, BofA cites the budget austerity during 2012-2015 as a major reason for the slow economic recovery. Incidentally, the bank’s reco “in this scenario investors should prepare for lower returns and higher volatility. Raise cash and buy Treasuries, munis, and high-quality corporate bonds.”

Visually, you are here:

Meanwhile, the all too real possibility that we are entering a period in which the Trump admin will challenge every battleground state result means we have days if not weeks in which where the decision on the ultimate outcome can go all the way to the supreme court. And, as further reminder, just last week, Bank of America predicted that a possible “contested election” crisis could results in up to 20% drop in stocks.

Which is why it is bizarre that today, in a day when we have both of these near worst-case outcomes, risk and Treasurys are both soaring, an unexpected outcome that has taken a heavy toll on traders who found out this morning that the entire election playbook was completely worthless. Indeed, by Wednesday morning, the Nasdaq 100 surged 4.2% – after being briefly halted after tripping a circuit-breaker to the upside – while the S&P 500 Index climbed 2.6% and Treasury bonds rallied.

As Bloomberg writes, after hours of staring at futures, watching financial TV and analyzing charts, Paul Nolte, a portfolio manager at Kingsview Investment Management, turned to something to settle his nerves: “A bottle of bourbon was the only way I could make it through the night.”

He wasn’t alone: Steve Chiavarone was another portfolio manager who picked up the bottle: the equity strategist at Federated Hermes said that while the evening played out largely along his firm’s expectations, he still spent a lot of time Facetiming with teammates and answering text messages. “It was like a big sleepover with some of your good friends, nerding out,” he told Bloomberg.  And there might have been a glass or two of bourbon consumed. “I had dinner but I don’t remember what it was,” he said. “It seems like it was that long ago.”

One person who should have been drinking heavily, was Anthony Saglimbene who had the painful job of capturing all the gyrations in a market commentary he sends to clients of Ameriprise Financial every morning. As the S&P 500 December futures contract swung from gains to losses and back, many drafts hit the waste basket.

“It’s looking like a blue wave. You write a little bit. And then you realize as the night goes that’s not really how it’s going,” said Saglimbene, who lives in Rochester, Michigan, the middle of a key battleground state. “Scrap that. Start rewriting.”

DataTrek Research co-founder Nick Colas took a drive around Manhattan around 11 p.m., where almost every storefront in midtown was boarded up in anticipation of potential unrest.

“New Yorkers occasionally get grief for being bluntly direct, fact-based, ‘what’s your point?’ sorts of people, and all the preparations for potential post-Election mayhem here fit that mold,” Colas wrote in a note to clients. “With any luck, we won’t need them. But just like risk management in investing, a little preparation goes a long way.”

In the end, there was no violence; in fact the only “violence” perpetrated was that against shorts, both in stocks – where until recently the Nasdaq sported a near record bearish bias…

… and in bonds, where the 30Y cumulative net short position is the highest on record, and is causing lots of pain for all those expecting higher yields.

Traders in Europe, who were also up all night, were a bit more civilized chugging coffee instead of bourbon.

“I spent a sleepless night in London fueled by copious amounts of coffee while the results trickled in slower than expected,” said Michael Brown, a senior market analyst at Caxton FX. “I’ve spent enough time looking at Electoral College maps over the last 18 hours to last a lifetime.” In Germany, Guillermo Hernandez Sampere, head of trading at MPPM EK, said that it was “the first time in six months when I didn’t hear of Covid-19 throughout the day — the attention had shifted entirely to the election.

Back in the US, however, the alcohol flowed: In Costa Mesa, Max Gokhman got by with the help of his “two friends,” as he called them: cold brew and bourbon. Eventually, the head of asset allocation for Pacific Life Fund Advisors was left alone with his drinks and election scenario tracking models. His wife couldn’t take the suspense and went to bed. His six-year-old German shepherd Wally lost interest, too.

“It wound up just being me and my home office, with the tender glow of the three screens reflecting off of my whiskey snifter.”

* * *

Finally, as for why traders tore up the carefully prepared script and just bought everything, the reason is simple: as JPM explained in a moment of “brutal honesty” on Monday, bad news is great for stocks because the “resultant growth weakness could bolster the above equity upside over the medium to longer term via inducing more QE and thus more liquidity creation.“

In other words, as we have said all along, for the market it does not matter who is president, as long as there is a Fed chairman who will hit CTRL-P whenever things get bad.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32fM3F7 Tyler Durden

Trump Says ‘We’ll Be Going to the Supreme Court’ Over Election Results

upiphotostwo770102

“We’ll be going to the Supreme Court,” President Donald Trump declared overnight as the final results of the 2020 presidential election were still coming in. “We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list.”

Republicans have already been knocking on the Supreme Court’s door this election cycle. On October 28, the Supreme Court denied a motion to expedite consideration of a petition filed by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, which is fighting a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision allowing state officials to count mailed-in ballots that are received up to three days after Election Day, so long as those ballots are postmarked by Election Day. The state court’s ruling also said that ballots with no postmark or with an illegible postmark may be presumed to have been filed in a timely manner if they are received in that same three-day post-election window.

In a statement accompanying the Court’s denial of the motion in Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, argued that the Court should have gotten involved right away. What is more, those three justices made it pretty clear that they thought the Republican Party of Pennsylvania should prevail. “It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election,” Alito wrote. “That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.”

Although SCOTUS declined to fast-track this petition, it is still pending before the Court. This means that the legal dispute could still be heard and decided by the justices. It also means that, depending on how the vote ultimately shakes out in Pennsylvania and other battleground states, this particular case could still play a role in determining the outcome of the presidential election.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/363awyC
via IFTTT

Trump Says ‘We’ll Be Going to the Supreme Court’ Over Election Results

upiphotostwo770102

“We’ll be going to the Supreme Court,” President Donald Trump declared overnight as the final results of the 2020 presidential election were still coming in. “We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list.”

Republicans have already been knocking on the Supreme Court’s door this election cycle. On October 28, the Supreme Court denied a motion to expedite consideration of a petition filed by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, which is fighting a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision allowing state officials to count mailed-in ballots that are received up to three days after Election Day, so long as those ballots are postmarked by Election Day. The state court’s ruling also said that ballots with no postmark or with an illegible postmark may be presumed to have been filed in a timely manner if they are received in that same three-day post-election window.

In a statement accompanying the Court’s denial of the motion in Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, argued that the Court should have gotten involved right away. What is more, those three justices made it pretty clear that they thought the Republican Party of Pennsylvania should prevail. “It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election,” Alito wrote. “That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.”

Although SCOTUS declined to fast-track this petition, it is still pending before the Court. This means that the legal dispute could still be heard and decided by the justices. It also means that, depending on how the vote ultimately shakes out in Pennsylvania and other battleground states, this particular case could still play a role in determining the outcome of the presidential election.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/363awyC
via IFTTT

Google Searches For “Liquor Store Near Me” Hits All-Time High Amid Election Anxiety  

Google Searches For “Liquor Store Near Me” Hits All-Time High Amid Election Anxiety  

Tyler Durden

Wed, 11/04/2020 – 12:20

Election Day is over, and it’s now Wednesday morning. No clear winner has emerged yet in an extremely tight presidential race, forcing some Americans to panic search “liquor store near me.” 

On Tuesday night, Google Trends’ Twitter account published a chart showing a parabolic move of internet searches for liquor stores as Americans sought to alleviate their election anxiety in a race that could take days for official election results to materialize. 

Many of the searches were in Deleware, Maryland, Tennesse, Georgia, and Colorado. Other related searches included “liquor store open near me,” “liquor store open,” “liquor stores near me,” and “liquor stores” were all in breakout territory. 

As shown below, “liquor store near me” hit an all-time high Tuesday night. 

Around 8 pm ET Tuesday, “move to Canada” searches exploded. 

At 5 am ET Wednesday, NBC News projects Biden has picked up 224 electoral votes versus 213 for Trump. 

It won’t be surprising if day two of “liquor store near me” searches continue to remain elevated. Maybe even the whole week.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2I80UKR Tyler Durden

Yesterday’s Clean Sweep for Drug Policy Reform Suggests That Prohibition May Collapse Sooner Than Expected

cannabis-mushrooms-poppies-cropped

It may be days before we know who won yesterday’s presidential election, but by the end of the evening, it was clear that drug warriors had suffered a resounding loss. Across the country, in red and blue states, on both coasts and in between, in the Midwest and the Deep South, voters passed ballot initiatives that not only continued to reverse marijuana prohibition but also broke new ground in making drug laws less punitive and more tolerant.

New Jersey’s approval of marijuana legalization was expected. Preelection surveys consistently put public support above 60 percent, although the actual margin of victory was a few points bigger than the polls suggested.

Arizona, where voters rejected legalization in 2016, was iffier. Public support averaged 56 percent in five polls conducted from mid-May to mid-October, and voters have been known to have second thoughts about legalization as Election Day approaches. In the end, legalization won by nearly 20 points. Survey averages likewise underestimated public support in Montana, where voters approved legalization by a 13-point margin, and Mississippi, where voters favored a relatively liberal medical marijuana initiative by a margin of nearly 3 to 1.

And who would have predicted that South Dakotans, who are overwhelmingly Republican and conservative, would make their state the first jurisdiction in the country to simultaneously legalize medical and recreational marijuana? Not me. Voters favored the former measure by more than 2 to 1, while the latter won by seven points.

“These results once again illustrate that support for legalization extends across geographic and demographic lines,” says Eric Altieri, director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “The success of these initiatives proves definitively that marijuana legalization is not exclusively a ‘blue’ state issue, but an issue that is supported by a majority of all Americans—regardless of party politics.”

The South Dakota results were not the only first yesterday. By a margin of more than 3 to 1, voters in Washington, D.C., approved quasi-decriminalization of “entheogenic plants and fungi.” That initiative, which says suppressing the use of such substances should be “among the lowest law enforcement priorities for the District of Columbia,” goes further than similar measures enacted recently in Denver, Ann Arbor, Oakland, and Santa Cruz, since it applies to noncommercial production and distribution as well as possession and covers ibogaine, dimethyltryptamine, and mescaline in addition to psilocybin and psilocin (although it does not include a prohibition on the use of public funds to pursue such cases).

Oregon, meanwhile, became the first jurisdiction in the United States to legalize psilocybin and the first to decriminalize possession of all drugs. The first initiative, which won by a margin of more than 11 points, allows adults 21 or older, regardless of whether they have a medical or psychiatric diagnosis, to consume psilocybin at state-licensed centers. The second measure, which was supported by nearly three-fifths of voters, makes low-level, noncommercial possession of controlled substances, which was previously a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail, a citable offense punishable by a $100 fine.

Yesterday’s returns confirm that marijuana prohibition, which is opposed by two-thirds of Americans, is on its way out. Fifteen states have now approved legalization, up from 11 the day before yesterday. As of next year, about one in three Americans will live in states where recreational use is legal.

The results also point the way toward less oppressive treatment of other psychoactive substances. Last year, when Denver became the first jurisdiction in the country to make psilocybin use a low law enforcement priority, it might have seemed like a symbolic victory with minimal practical consequences. But a similar Denver initiative dealing with marijuana, passed in 2007, helped pave the way for the 2012 legalization of cannabis in Colorado, the first state to allow recreational use. Less than two years after Denver’s psilocybin vote, Oregon already has taken the next step.

When Denver’s initiative passed, I worried that drug policy reform would stall, limited to substances that Americans are prepared to recognize as relatively benign and beneficial. But Oregon’s decriminalization initiative, which covers notorious substances such as heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine as well as psychedelics such as LSD, shows voters can be persuaded that it is wrong to treat drug users as criminals. They will instead be treated less severely than speeders or illegal parkers, which certainly counts as an improvement. The initiative’s backers estimate that it will reduce possession arrests by more than 90 percent.

Crucially, while drug users can avoid the $100 fine by undergoing a “health assessment” at an “addiction recovery center,” they are not required to do so, and assessments are supposed to “prioritize the self-identified needs of the client.” In fact, opponents of the initiative, including self-identified critics of the drug war, complained that the reform makes it impossible to force drug users into treatment by threatening them with criminal penalties. That is a feature, not a bug.

Americans may not be ready to eliminate all penalties for drug use, let alone recognize the moral dubiousness of continuing to arrest and imprison people who merely aid and abet what is no longer a crime and never should have been. But if the history of marijuana reform teaches us anything, it is the importance of incremental changes that eventually lead to a fundamental reconsideration of the way the government treats psychoactive substances that politicians do not like. First marijuana use was changed from a felony to a misdemeanor, then it was decriminalized, then it was allowed for medical purposes, and now it is increasingly treated as a legal intoxicant sold by legitimate businesses.

Although that process took decades, the last breakthrough happened sooner than I expected. We may yet be surprised by how quickly the rest of the drug prohibition regime crumbles.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2I2U2OQ
via IFTTT

Trump Versus Biden: Five Election Night Takeaways

Trump Versus Biden: Five Election Night Takeaways

Tyler Durden

Wed, 11/04/2020 – 12:00

Authored by Oliver Wiseman via TheCritic.co.uk,

It’s still too soon to say who will be the next president of the United States, and far too soon for me to be in a position to explain what happened — and why. We know that the Joe Biden blowout scenario, and Democratic dreams of early celebrations, will not come to pass. We also know that, once again, conventional wisdom underestimated Donald Trump.

At the time of writing, just one major battleground states have been called, Florida for Trump. Biden looks set to win Arizona. The President has held on to Texas. While we wait for news from Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, here are five thoughts based on what we know so far. 

1. Trumpism has not been vanquished

Those horrified by more or less everything about Donald Trump wanted to do more than make him a one-term president. They wanted irrefutable evidence that 2016 was a fluke, that Trump was an aberration who could swiftly be forgotten and and that the shortcomings of Donald Trump were self-evident to the overwhelming majority of voters. Even if every remaining swing state goes blue, that is not what they will get in 2020.

Given the president’s approval ratings, and the fact that the election is being conducted in the middle of a pandemic, Democrats cannot claim an especially wide-ranging mandate from this election if they win. If Trump wins, then the Democratic post-mortem must to be unsparing.

2. A peaceful, functional election. So far.

Not long ago, many were predicting widespread voter intimidation and violence on election day. In the first presidential debate, Donald Trump called on his supporters to freelance as election observers. More generally, there was intense scepticism about America’s ability to conduct an election in the middle of a pandemic. Voting machines would crash, foreign powers would intervene.

But after bracing for a day of disconcerting footage of street standoffs and a never-ending stream of evidence of administrative dysfunction, America seems to have pulled off the first bit of its election — the casting of ballots — with a surprising degree of proficiency.

America’s press isn’t shy about warning of  an imminent crisis of democracy. They usually fail to materialise, to little fanfare. So it is worth pausing to appreciate that election day was largely incident free.

Now the question is whether the counting of those votes will be as orderly and peaceful. The President struck an ominously combative tone shortly after midnight when he claimed, without evidence, that “we are up big, but they are trying to steal the election.”

But the president can only do so much. States administer elections. The courts settle disputes. Let’s hope that when it comes to election officials and judges, cooler heads prevail. 

3. The surprising racial dynamics of the 2020 race

One of the most significant moments of the night came early, when Florida’s results started to filter in and it quickly became clear that the Sunshine State would once again disappoint Democrats. One county in particular proved fatal to Biden. Four years ago, Hillary Clinton won populous Miami-Dade by a 30-point margin. This year, Biden’s margin of victory was just 9 points, offsetting the gains he made in the rest of the state. The county is heavily Cuban-American, and it would appear that Trump’s robustly anti-socialist line paid off. 

Results from heavily Hispanic counties in Texas paint a similar picture, with Biden underperforming Clinton there too. If Biden wins, he will likely have done so by rebuilding the “blue wall” with support from white voters in the upper Midwest. The signs of a surprising racial dynamic at work in this election had showed up in the polls in the final few months of the race (something I wrote about a few weeks ago).

Perhaps this is part of a broader realignment in US politics that will confound predictions of a coming Democratic majority. Perhaps it is down to the quirks of 2020 — the Trump campaign’s heavily anti-socialist message and the absence of immigration from the debate. Either way, it would be an ironic end to the Trump era if the president loses because of a fall in support among white voters while strengthening his position among the rest of the electorate. The irony will be deeper still if non-white voters help deliver him four more years.

4. The power of the feel-good factor 

Why does Trump look to be doing better than the polls expected?

An intangible but powerful part of his appeal was his campaign’s feel-good energy, which whether or not you think it was appropriate in the midst of a pandemic, contrasted starkly with the solemn tone of the Biden campaign. It’s not something I thought would win him the election, but it is something I’ve written about a few times.

In August, I jumped aboard a speed boat and took part in a Boaters for Trump parade in Delaware’s Indian River. It was a riotous affair: downing shots while waist high in water at the edge of a sand bar. As I wrote at the time, the whole thing was “plainly absurd and fundamentally unserious” but that the boaters themselves seemed to realise this. “There’s political power in permission to have fun,” I speculated.

A few months later, in Sanford, Florida, I thought something similar. I was at Trump’s comeback rally after contracting Covid-19. There was a festive atmosphere and Trump mixed camp with Presidential grandeur to great effect. Whether or not it is enough to win him four more years, Trump hands his supporters a permission slip to say what they think and not feel bad about themselves or their country.

5. When will we have a winner? 

This race will likely be decided in the upper Midwest, where relatively few votes have been counted so far and where the process could take a few days. Wisconsin may declare a winner today. Pennsylvania and Michigan will likely take longer. Vote counting in Georgia inches closer to a result, with the Biden-friendly Atlanta area responsible for many of the votes to be counted. After a frenetic evening of results that answered some questions but left the most important ones unanswered, both candidates still have a path to the White House.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3kZQtHp Tyler Durden

Yesterday’s Clean Sweep for Drug Policy Reform Suggests That Prohibition May Collapse Sooner Than Expected

cannabis-mushrooms-poppies-cropped

It may be days before we know who won yesterday’s presidential election, but by the end of the evening, it was clear that drug warriors had suffered a resounding loss. Across the country, in red and blue states, on both coasts and in between, in the Midwest and the Deep South, voters passed ballot initiatives that not only continued to reverse marijuana prohibition but also broke new ground in making drug laws less punitive and more tolerant.

New Jersey’s approval of marijuana legalization was expected. Preelection surveys consistently put public support above 60 percent, although the actual margin of victory was a few points bigger than the polls suggested.

Arizona, where voters rejected legalization in 2016, was iffier. Public support averaged 56 percent in five polls conducted from mid-May to mid-October, and voters have been known to have second thoughts about legalization as Election Day approaches. In the end, legalization won by nearly 20 points. Survey averages likewise underestimated public support in Montana, where voters approved legalization by a 13-point margin, and Mississippi, where voters favored a relatively liberal medical marijuana initiative by a margin of nearly 3 to 1.

And who would have predicted that South Dakotans, who are overwhelmingly Republican and conservative, would make their state the first jurisdiction in the country to simultaneously legalize medical and recreational marijuana? Not me. Voters favored the former measure by more than 2 to 1, while the latter won by seven points.

“These results once again illustrate that support for legalization extends across geographic and demographic lines,” says Eric Altieri, director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “The success of these initiatives proves definitively that marijuana legalization is not exclusively a ‘blue’ state issue, but an issue that is supported by a majority of all Americans—regardless of party politics.”

The South Dakota results were not the only first yesterday. By a margin of more than 3 to 1, voters in Washington, D.C., approved quasi-decriminalization of “entheogenic plants and fungi.” That initiative, which says suppressing the use of such substances should be “among the lowest law enforcement priorities for the District of Columbia,” goes further than similar measures enacted recently in Denver, Ann Arbor, Oakland, and Santa Cruz, since it applies to noncommercial production and distribution as well as possession and covers ibogaine, dimethyltryptamine, and mescaline in addition to psilocybin and psilocin (although it does not include a prohibition on the use of public funds to pursue such cases).

Oregon, meanwhile, became the first jurisdiction in the United States to legalize psilocybin and the first to decriminalize possession of all drugs. The first initiative, which won by a margin of more than 11 points, allows adults 21 or older, regardless of whether they have a medical or psychiatric diagnosis, to consume psilocybin at state-licensed centers. The second measure, which was supported by nearly three-fifths of voters, makes low-level, noncommercial possession of controlled substances, which was previously a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail, a citable offense punishable by a $100 fine.

Yesterday’s returns confirm that marijuana prohibition, which is opposed by two-thirds of Americans, is on its way out. Fifteen states have now approved legalization, up from 11 the day before yesterday. As of next year, about one in three Americans will live in states where recreational use is legal.

The results also point the way toward less oppressive treatment of other psychoactive substances. Last year, when Denver became the first jurisdiction in the country to make psilocybin use a low law enforcement priority, it might have seemed like a symbolic victory with minimal practical consequences. But a similar Denver initiative dealing with marijuana, passed in 2007, helped pave the way for the 2012 legalization of cannabis in Colorado, the first state to allow recreational use. Less than two years after Denver’s psilocybin vote, Oregon already has taken the next step.

When Denver’s initiative passed, I worried that drug policy reform would stall, limited to substances that Americans are prepared to recognize as relatively benign and beneficial. But Oregon’s decriminalization initiative, which covers notorious substances such as heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine as well as psychedelics such as LSD, shows voters can be persuaded that it is wrong to treat drug users as criminals. They will instead be treated less severely than speeders or illegal parkers, which certainly counts as an improvement. The initiative’s backers estimate that it will reduce possession arrests by more than 90 percent.

Crucially, while drug users can avoid the $100 fine by undergoing a “health assessment” at an “addiction recovery center,” they are not required to do so, and assessments are supposed to “prioritize the self-identified needs of the client.” In fact, opponents of the initiative, including self-identified critics of the drug war, complained that the reform makes it impossible to force drug users into treatment by threatening them with criminal penalties. That is a feature, not a bug.

Americans may not be ready to eliminate all penalties for drug use, let alone recognize the moral dubiousness of continuing to arrest and imprison people who merely aid and abet what is no longer a crime and never should have been. But if the history of marijuana reform teaches us anything, it is the importance of incremental changes that eventually lead to a fundamental reconsideration of the way the government treats psychoactive substances that politicians do not like. First marijuana use was changed from a felony to a misdemeanor, then it was decriminalized, then it was allowed for medical purposes, and now it is increasingly treated as a legal intoxicant sold by legitimate businesses.

Although that process took decades, the last breakthrough happened sooner than I expected. We may yet be surprised by how quickly the rest of the drug prohibition regime crumbles.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2I2U2OQ
via IFTTT

This Is Where The Vote Stands In Each Key Undecided State

This Is Where The Vote Stands In Each Key Undecided State

Tyler Durden

Wed, 11/04/2020 – 11:45

Update (1145ET): Wisconsin has officially been called for Joe Biden.

* * *

Now that the ‘Blue Wave’ has been thwarted, and Democrats look to return in the next Congress with an even weaker hand in the House, (not to mention smaller-than-expected gains in the Senate), both team Biden and the Trump Campaign are claiming victory, as Americans wait for the final vote tallies from a handful of swing states that could once again decide the election.

Biden has reportedly managed to ‘flip’ Arizona, and while Wisconsin and Michigan are currently leaning Democratic, North Carolina, Georgia and PA (perhaps the most important state of them all) are still leaning red.

As both sides lawyer up, here’s the current state of play in the US, along with a rundown of when Americans and the rest of the world can expect the final results, depending on a number of scenarios.

Pennsylvania:

Pennsylvania was long expected to be under scrutiny in a close race, with both campaigns aggressively courting voters in the final days before the election.

Trump led Biden by about 657,000 votes as of 9 a.m., but there were at least 1.4 million uncounted mail-in and absentee ballots that will determine the outcome, according to the Department of State.

The department reported almost 1.1 million mail ballots were counted statewide, with 77% for Biden and 22% for Trump. By contrast, there were 3.9 million votes cast on Election Day, with 66% for Trump and 33% for Biden.

Pennsylvania has tallied 44% of mail-in ballots across the commonwealth, according to a department dashboard. The outstanding ballots are expected to favor Biden because Democrats dominated the requests. Of the 2.55 million ballots reported returned as of Tuesday, registered Democrats accounted for 65% and Republicans 24%, data show.

In Philadelphia, the commonwealth’s most populous county where 76% of registered voters are Democrats, 141,523 of an expected 350,000 to 400,000 mail-in ballots have been reported counted as the processing and counting continues. Allegheny County, the second most-populous, is reporting about half of its almost 350,000 mail-in ballots counted, according to the dashboard. Bottom Line: Philadelphia is expected to report additional mail-in votes on Wednesday morning. State officials say a final result should be ready “within days.”

Wisconsin:

Biden had a small lead in Wisconsin, which has 10 electoral votes, after several metropolitan areas submitted their absentee ballot counts early Wednesday morning, overturning the lead that Trump had maintained since the polls closed at 8 p.m. By late in the morning, the Biden campaign was calling it for Joe after state officials said all votes had been counted.

Although Biden was ahead by almost 21,000 votes as of 8:40 a.m. local time, no major network had yet called the state. With the two candidates within a percentage point of each other, the loser when the final precinct’s numbers are in has the right to request a recount. Meanwhile, the state’s election commission said that clerks will be randomly selecting 5% of reporting units for voting-equipment audits. The process for official certification of results doesn’t start until Nov. 10.

Bottom Line: Biden is penciling in a win, but the state is still in play as of late Wednesday morning.

Michigan

Michigan — a state Trump narrowly won in 2016 — expects to complete most of its ballot counting by the end of the day, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson told CNN Wednesday morning.

Ballots from Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Warren and Sterling Heights were still being recorded. The state likely won’t have final results until later in the day because Detroit is the largest precinct and had a record turnout this year, with a large swath of absentee ballots that take longer to count than in-person votes.

Benson, who has scheduled an update on the counting process later Wednesday morning, did say that other Michigan counties will be reporting in the coming hours, which could give election watchers an idea of where the state is headed. Biden started pulling ahead Wednesday morning as more absentee ballots were tabulated.

Benson said that 3.3 million absentee ballots have been received and are being tabulated and another 2 million to 2.5 million voted at the polls Tuesday.

“We’ll know much more in the hours to come and we’ll have a much more complete picture of Michigan later today,” she said.

Bottom Line: State election officials said Wednesday morning that an ‘unofficial’ result should be known by Wednesday evening.

Georgia

All but one of Georgia’s counties had completely reported vote totals as of Wednesday morning. But in Fulton County, which includes most of the Democratic stronghold of Atlanta, only about 77% of the estimated vote has been counted.

Fulton, the largest county in Georgia, suffered a setback earlier Tuesday in counting mail-in ballots, after a water leak forced officials to stop tallying and tens of thousands of ballots were left uncounted.

Trump led Biden by about 102,000 votes on Wednesday morning, though the remaining ballots are likely to break heavily for Biden. As of late Wednesday morning, 200k votes were left to be counted.

Bottom Line: Georgia expects all votes to be counted by the end of the day.

North Carolina

North Carolina’s race was tight on Wednesday morning, with Trump leading by about 77,000 votes.

About 62% of the state’s voters cast ballots before Election Day. More registered Democrats voted early than Republicans, but one-third of the electorate is unaffiliated with either major party.

The state Board of Elections said that 100% of precincts have reported Election Day votes, but that the state still had to count about 25% of the total ballots cast, or roughly 1.9 million votes.

Democrats took some solace in Governor Roy Cooper winning re-election, but it’s not clear if that’s a signal Biden can flip the traditionally Republican state.

Bottom Line: The state has as long as nine days to count mail-in ballots sent before Election Day.

Nevada

A final count in Nevada isn’t expected for several days as it awaits ballots mailed as late as Election Day to arrive, though it isn’t clear how many people waited that long to vote. With about 82% of votes counted, Biden was holding a lead of less than one percentage point.

“Clerks have until Nov. 10 to receive mail ballots and until Nov. 12 to count them,” said Jennifer Russell, a spokeswoman for Nevada’s secretary of state. Bottom Line: The state began posting partial results late Tuesday, with Biden holding a slim lead over Trump. That count, which included early and Election Day voting, will continue to trickle in on Tuesday.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2I7Vqjc Tyler Durden

McConnell Says New Stimulus Bill Still Needed, Cites “Possibility” Of State, Local Aid

McConnell Says New Stimulus Bill Still Needed, Cites “Possibility” Of State, Local Aid

Tyler Durden

Wed, 11/04/2020 – 11:37

In the first indication that the Senate is willing to accept a Biden victory, moments ago Senate Majority Leader McConnell – in a notable change in tone – said a new COVID-19 aid bill is still needed by the end of 2020, and it is possible that there is a “possibility” the Senate will concede on the key Democratic demand of help for state and local governments.

Moments prior to this, he said that “claiming you win the election is different from finishing the counting.”

While markets remain too dazed to care, this suggests at two things: i) McConnell will concede to Democratic demands suggesting he won’t back Trump in forcefully challenging the election outcome and ii) rumors of the reflation trade’s death may have been greatly exaggerated.

That said, 10Y yields continued to high session lows, trading just above 0.76% (down from 0.94% overnight), as the unwind of the Blue Wave trade continues.

 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jXWOlp Tyler Durden