Maybe Jo Jorgensen Finishing With 1% Would Actually Be Pretty Good?

JoJorgBus

As dawn broke on the final day of voting in election 2020, Libertarian Party (L.P.) presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen was polling nationally at around 1.8 percent, and above the margin between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in five states: Ohio, Texas, Georgia, Iowa, and (in scant polling) Alaska.

That’s a far cry from 2016 Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson’s last pre-election polling average of 4.8 percent, or even the former New Mexico governor’s disappointing-to-many final tally of 3.28 percent.

“Beating Gary’s last numbers would be success,” Jorgensen told Reason‘s Eric Boehm one month ago, while also complaining about not being included in nearly as many polls this cycle. “I’m hoping to beat his second run. But, you know, put it this way: I will consider it not a success if I don’t at least his beat his numbers from his first run.”

Johnson’s 2012 exertions won him 0.99 percent of the national vote, or just a hair under the L.P.’s then-record haul of 1.06 percent in 1980, in a ticket headed by Ed Clark and financed by deep-pocketed vice presidential nominee David Koch (yes, that one). So what Jorgensen is saying that anything below 1 percent would be a disappointment.

Certainly, many Libertarians would consider even a 1.1 percent showing—just one-third of 2016!—to be a bummer, while many two-party voters (including not a small number of self-described small-l libertarians) would use it as an opportunity for ridicule, or at least critique of how the party always seems to squander its opportunities. Democrats and Republicans aren’t even talking about reducing government and expanding freedom anymore, in a country where those issues have resonated historically, and all you got was this lousy one percent?

But as the clock ticks toward the first poll-closings at 7 p.m. eastern, I would suggest at least entertaining another interpretation. Maybe 1.1 percent in this third-party-unfriendly environment would be an accomplishment, cementing the L.P.’s transformation over the past decade from a mostly non-podium performer that couldn’t win over even half of a percent of the electorate from 1984–2008, to the third party in the United States. (Yes, yes, insert “tallest dwarf” joke here.)

Consider: As of late October (per the indispensable Richard Winger), in the 32 states that register voters by party, there were 47.1 million Democrats, 35 million Republicans, and 33.7 independents. Libertarians, while a distant third at 652,000, towered above Greens (240,000), the Constitution Party (130,000), the New York–based Working Families (50,000), and the desiccated husk of Ross Perot’s Reform Party (9,000).

Jorgensen, with a fraction of the name recognition of 2008 Libertarian nominee Bob Barr (then an ex-GOP congressman who made his name in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton), is polling ahead of all third-party and independent presidential candidates in every state except New York (where, after just two polls, she trailed independent Brock Pierce and Green Party nominee Howie Hawkins). This on the heels of Gary Johnson beating all third-party comers in all 50 states.

Barr, on the other hand, finished with just 0.4 percent of the vote, behind the 0.56 percent of four-time independent candidate Ralph Nader, who Barr beat in just six states.

When Jorgensen, the party’s vice presidential nominee in 1996 (Harry Browne won just 0.5 percent of the vote that year, behind both Nader and Perot), finishes in third place tonight, that will mark the third consecutive presidential bronze medal for the L.P.—something no political party has pulled off since the Socialists between 1916–1932.

Put another way, of all voters who selected neither a Democrat nor a Republican for president, 57 percent of them chose a Libertarian in both 2012 and 2016, the party’s highest-ever such share, topping Ron Paul’s 48 percent in 1988. Polling suggests that Jorgensen is likely to repeat that performance, even with such luminaries as Kanye West on some ballots. The dominant alternative to the political status quo is called “Libertarian.”

And contrary to a common critique, it’s not just about presidential elections. The party has more than 200 elected officials, mostly in state and local positions, though since April their ranks have included for the first time a sitting (if lame-duck) member of Congress, Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.). Elected Libertarians do useful stuff, like pass occupational licensing reform, remove ancient prohibitions from the books, and reform public-sector pensions.

That sound you hear is aggressive eye rolling from Democratic and Republican voters, who are busy battling the most important election in the history of mankind, and have no patience left for political LARPers. And fair enough—marginal blocs will always be treated marginally, at least until we’re needed to help push through the types of libertarian reforms that major-party politicians talk about but rarely accomplish: ending the drug war, bringing the troops home, reducing the size of government, protecting free speech, even helping improve infrastructure.

But the more that libertarians retain their own discrete political identity, rather than latching on like barnacles to the rusty tankers of the two major parties, the more likely that their affections will be solicited, rather than taken for granted. President Donald Trump is out there stressing anti-war themes to 2016 Johnson voters, and that’s not a bad outcome at all (if inferior to actually ending our Forever Wars).

The past week has featured many semi-prominent libertarian media personalities ripping each other’s faces off (rhetorically) in advance of the election. It will ever be thus—have you met libertarians? There is a powerful lure to be part of something that could be, if you squint at it just right, characterized as winning. It would be pretty to think that this Republican or that Democrat is gonna really do the libertarian things just as soon as he/she wins the next election.

In the face of those temptations, and the motivating negative polarization of seeing awful politicians and ideologies in or near power, it’s a wonder there’s much of any third-party juice left four years after a bitterly divided election. If in this context, a relative no-name candidate produces the party’s second-best-ever result, while beating all other third partiers in all 50 states, I’d call that an accomplishment.

Who knows if and when our 19th century political groupings will transmogrify into something new, or even perhaps stumble off into the sunset. When that day nears, people will be looking anew toward the next available alternative. Right now, for better and for worse, warts—so many warts!—and all, that alternative is called “Libertarian.” And will be on Wednesday, too.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34Z8HDH
via IFTTT

Illinois’-Own COVID-19 Data Reveals State’s COVID-19 Policy Is Upside-Down

Illinois’-Own COVID-19 Data Reveals State’s COVID-19 Policy Is Upside-Down

Tyler Durden

Tue, 11/03/2020 – 18:45

Authored by Ted Dabrowski and John Klingner via Wirepoints.org,

A Wirepoints review of last month’s COVID-19 data reveals just how flawed Illinois’ response to the coronavirus continues to be. The recent spike in cases has the government shutting down large parts of the state again in a brute-force approach, when its efforts should, instead, be hyper-focused on the elderly and opening up the economy for everyone else.

Data from October shows that the elderly continue to dominate Illinois’ COVID deaths, even more than in recent months. Of the 393 increase in Illinois COVID deaths from September to October, nearly two-thirds came from those aged 80 and over. Illinois’ blanket lockdown policies have consistently failed to stem the deaths of the elderly since the pandemic began, especially those in nursing homes. 

Meanwhile, those same blanket bans have destroyed jobs, damaged mental health and caused many other problems for Illinoisans who are far less likely to be affected by the coronavirus. The CDC’s latest projections show a survival rate of 99.98% for infected Americans aged 20-50.

With the elderly still inadequately protected and younger Illinoisans suffering harm disproportionate to their COVID risk, it’s clear the state’s approach to taking on the coronavirus is upside down.

Outbreaks and the elderly

To see how the state continues to fail its elderly population, take a quick look at the average age of all COVID deaths in Illinois over the last couple of weeks. The daily average often reached 80 and on some days exceeded 82 years of age.

Overall, the age of Illinois’ COVID deaths for the month of October averaged 80, at least three years higher than the average over the entire pandemic period.

The share of deaths by age group in October also reveals how elderly deaths are becoming more dominant. The 80 and older bracket made up 55% of all deaths in October, compared to just 45% from March through September.

Another cut at that data shows 91% of Illinois’ COVID deaths in October were in the 60-and-older bracket. That’s a major increase from the 86% figure for the period between March and September.

Amazingly, a large number of those elderly deaths are still linked to retirement homes, despite the massive coverage that crisis has received. More than 425 deaths were tied to Long Term Care facilities from Oct. 2 to Oct 30, over 44% of all Illinois COVID deaths in that period. 

The fact that the state still hasn’t gotten the outbreaks in Illinois retirement homes under control shows how misguided the return to broad lockdowns is. Instead of focusing time and energy on protecting the specific population that is dying from COVID, Illinois’ efforts are hurting everyone – including those the CDC says have a very low probability of dying.

Younger Illinoisans and risk

The CDC recently released their estimates of COVID’s Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for the country.

The IFRs show that people between the ages of 20 and 50 have a 99.98% probability of survival if they’re infected. Said in the opposite way, the chance of death after infection for those in that age bracket is at 0.02%. For those under 20, the chance of death from COVID is just 0.003%. 

On the other hand, the CDC data also shows that the risk of death jumps to over 5% for those over 70, again making the case that it’s the elderly who are most at risk.

The other demographic the state should focus on are the non-elderly with pre-existing conditions. There are 187 Illinoisans under the age of 40 who have died of COVID since the start of the pandemic. Most of them had one or more pre-existing conditions that include hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and obesity. We don’t know precisely because IDPH refuses to publish the numbers. 

However, the Cook County Medical Examiner does provide them for the county. Of the county’s 66 COVID victims under the age of 40 (those which listed COVID as the primary cause of death), 54 had one or more comorbidity.

COVID-19 is a serious risk to a far smaller population than the number of people impacted by the state’s broader lockdowns, which we warned from the beginning would do more harm than good.

That viewpoint is now endorsed by signers of The Great Barrington Declaration, which includes many of the world’s top epidemiologists and infectious disease experts.

The state has spent billions on economic and other relief efforts as a result of the lockdowns, but the more effective plan would be to broadly open up the state and spend what is necessary to protect the elderly and the vulnerable. That means obsessing over safety in retirement homes as well as providing assistance to the elderly living among the general public.

Preventing healthcare facilities from being overwhelmed is also key. The state should ensure hospitals have the resources needed to handle major spikes in cases.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened, at least not judging by Illinois’ overall bed capacity (the same can be said for Illinois’ overall ICU bed capacity). Illinois’ hospital bed capacity grew to 35,000 in June and hasn’t budged since.

The science and data behind COVID is telling us it’s time to reopen. Until the data proves otherwise – and we should be vigilant in looking out for any changes in the virus – it’s time to flip the state’s COVID policy on its head.

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

Mainstream Media Outlets Are Starting To Wonder If There’s Life For Their Ratings After Trump

Mainstream Media Outlets Are Starting To Wonder If There’s Life For Their Ratings After Trump

Tyler Durden

Tue, 11/03/2020 – 18:25

As much as the mainstream media has spent the last 4 years doing nothing but pointing out the faults of, and generally harassing President Trump, there would likely be a good portion of the media that would be sorry to see him go, should he lose the 2020 election.

And that is the stage many media companies, including Fox News and the New York Times, are pondering now: what would ratings be like – and what would life be like – if President Trump isn’t around for four more years?

Early indications seem to show that the viewing public could be ready for a change, however, even if news organizations aren’t. Vice President Joe Biden posted better ratings than Trump in October for both candidates’ town halls, Bloomberg reports. Additionally, articles on Biden online – which are far more positive and ubiquitous than articles on Trump – have gotten “higher engagement per story” than those about Trump. 

Despite this, news organizations seem to be worried about ratings deep into a Biden administration. On the contrary, Trump was capable of driving ratings simply based on his personality, regardless of whether or not there was a political story to report on any particular day. 

Jim VandeHei of Axios said: “With Biden you’re not going to have these wild rallies. You’re going to have speeches on budget reconciliation. I don’t think that’s going to light people’s hearts afire. There’s no way you’re not going to see lower cable ratings and some reduction in traffic to websites.”

One of the biggest beneficiaries of the Trump presidency has been the New York Times, who Bloomberg reports as bringing on subscribers “in droves” during Trump’s presidency. Of course, the New York Times was helped along by being able to peddle a Russian meddling story and an impeachment story that both turned out to be non-stories. Between that and publishing an “anonymous” manifesto from a member of the White House “resistance” who turned out to be nobody but a disgruntled low-level staffer, we can see why the paper was able to capture the attention of some curious new subscribers.

The irony, of course, is that the New York Times could do worse under their candidate’s Presidency. Media analyst John Belton of Evercore said: “There’s certainly a perception within the investor community that a Biden win will result in a slowdown in New York Times subscriber growth.”

NYT CEO Meredith Kopit Levien said: “The Times is in many ways, as a business, countercyclical to certainty in the world. And it is very hard to imagine that we’re moving into more certain times.”

Cable channels could also face challenges if Trump loses. Fox News might do the best after a Biden win, as it saw its viewership drop after Trump won, from 55% during the Obama years to 46%. MSNBC has “struggled” this year when the news cycle isn’t about politics. With nobody left to complain about during a potential Biden presidency, we’d have to guess that Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes would be devoid of a majority of the political content that kept the network afloat the last 4 years. 

Tony Haile, CEO of Scroll, summed it up by saying: “The tribal representation of subscribing as political act loses some of its strength,” if Trump loses his platform.

He continued: “If on one hand you’ve got Biden who is predictable and conventional and you have all these wild antics on other side, do you just ignore it or do you cover it? It’ll be a big test for the media.”

And that begs the obvious question: even if Biden wins, would Trump be thrust out of the media or continue to be embraced by it?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3kU7vXG Tyler Durden

Here’s Who and What Is Winning in State Races and Ballot Initiatives

voting_1161x653

Eleven states (and two territories) are electing governors this evening, and political control of state legislatures is on the table in Texas, Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Montana, Alaska, North Carolina, and a couple of other places.

There are also 120 ballot initiatives under consideration in 32 states covering such issues as drug policy, criminal justice reform, taxes, redistricting, and election systems.

Throughout the evening look for updated results here about the balance of political power within states and the results of important ballot initiatives.

Polls will start to close in East Coast states at 7 p.m. Here are some relevant ballot initiatives that I’m keeping an eye on in those states:

  • In Florida, voters will consider whether to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
  • Also in Florida, voters will consider whether to shift the primary elections away from closed partisan races to a “jungle primary” where all registered voters can vote regardless of party affiliation and all candidates compete in the same pool regardless of party; the top two vote-getters then face off in the general election. This is similar to how state races in California and Washington are held.
  • In Virginia, voters will consider whether to strip the power away from the state legislature to draw congressional and state district boundaries and instead give it to a 16-member commission.

More polls will be closing at 8 p.m. eastern and we’ll have a lot more initiatives to look at then, including marijuana legalization in New Jersey, ranked-choice voting in Massachusetts, and psilocybin decriminalization in District of Columbia.

This post will be updated with new information as more polls close and election results arrive.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32a3JBT
via IFTTT

Not a Burgher of Calais?

BurghersOfCalaisLarge
Thanks to Wikipedia and Auguste Rodin.

 

From Cain v. Sambides, decided yesterday by Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr.:

A pro se prisoner objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss a defamation lawsuit against a newspaper, an editor and a staff writer…. Mr. Cain alleges that the [defendants] published nine defamatory statements in a July 20, 2018 BDN article about his sentencing for stalking.

Mr. Cain … objects that, contrary to the Magistrate Judge’s determination, the article’s statement that he was from Maine “has caused … undue harm” because it has adversely affected how the BOP treats him and is therefore actionable under Maine defamation law. Mr. Cain says in his Complaint … that he “was not born in Maine, Never a citizen of Maine, nor am I a former Maine Man.” In his objection, he says that the BOP used the article’s assertion that he was from Maine and Texas to refuse to assign him to Nevada and instead to assign him to Fort Worth, Texas. Furthermore, he maintains that the BOP is going to release him in Maine when he finishes his prison term….

The allegedly false and defamatory statement is that Mr. Cain was “formerly of … Calais.” While Mr. Cain alleged that the Defendants’ statement caused the BOP to treat him in a way that he dislikes, this does not make the statement defamatory. {[T]he plain and ordinary meaning of this statement does not “tend[] … so to harm the reputation of [Mr. Cain] as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.”} Mr. Cain does not argue that being associated with the city of Calais or the state of Maine harmed his reputation, nor would this argument succeed. The mere statement that a person was “formerly of … Calais,” Maine is not pejorative, and many would properly take it as a compliment that they were formerly (or currently) association with the city of Calais and the state of Maine.

{The Court is extremely dubious about Mr. Cain’s charge that the BOP relied on the contents of a newspaper article to make penal decisions about him. However, the Court does not rest its affirmance on its skepticism of Mr. Cain’s assertion.}

Moreover, the statement as written is literally true. Mr. Cain acknowledges that he “sojurn[ed]” in Maine for work and that he stayed in a place rented for him by his employer. Contrary to Mr. Cain’s protests, the BDN article does not say or imply that Mr. Cain was born in Maine, that he was a citizen of Calais, Maine, or that he was or is a Maine man; it only says that he was “formerly of Calais,” a phrase consistent with his remaining in Calais for a period of time while he completed a construction job. Indeed, in its description of Mr. Cain’s status in Calais, Maine, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit used language similar to the BDN article. United States v. Cain (1st Cir. 2019) (“After a short courtship, Cain married L.H., a resident of Houlton, Maine, in August 2014. At the time, Cain was living in Calais, Maine, and working as a superintendent overseeing the construction of a local Walmart”). While living in Calais for the duration of his employment there, Mr. Cain could be properly be characterized as “of Calais” and after he left, as “formerly of Calais.”

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

Chairman Of Joint Chiefs Tells TV News Anchors Military Won’t Intervene In Election

Chairman Of Joint Chiefs Tells TV News Anchors Military Won’t Intervene In Election

Tyler Durden

Tue, 11/03/2020 – 18:05

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held an off-the-record video meeting with TV anchors from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News in which he asserted that the U.S. military will not intervene in the aftermath of the presidential election.

According to Axios, “The nation’s top military official set up Saturday’s highly unusual call to make clear that the military’s role is apolitical.”

Mark Milley also sought to “dispel any notion of a role for the military in adjudicating a disputed election or making any decision around removing a president from the White House.”

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell, NBC’s Lester Holt, CNN’s Jim Sciutto and Fox’s Martha MacCallum were all participants in the call.

The meeting followed Joe Biden’s recent remark to the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah that he was “absolutely convinced” the military would “escort [Trump] from the White House in a dispatch” if he refused to leave office.

As we highlighted earlier, National Guard troops are already in place in several U.S. cities in preparation for any civil unrest, with polls showing 77% of Americans fearing violence to be likely.

The Biden campaign has already asserted that “under no scenario” will it allow Trump to claim victory tonight.

The former Vice President is also planning to address the nation and “assert control” as the president-elect if he is declared winner by news organizations, even if President Trump refuses to concede.

*  *  *

New limited edition merch now available! Click here.

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

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

Daily Briefing – November 3, 2020

Daily Briefing – November 3, 2020


Tyler Durden

Tue, 11/03/2020 – 17:35

Real Vision senior editor Ash Bennington welcomes Hari Krishnan, head of volatility strategies at SCT Capital, to break down the hidden forces driving markets on U.S. election day. Disagreeing with the linear narratives about how election results impact markets, Krishnan instead analyzes the market plumbing, looking at the trend spike in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, interest rate volatility, and the likely forced selling options dealers’ will have to conduct should the S&P 500 start to show weakness. After Krishnan shares with Bennington his theory explaining the “kink” in the VIX futures curve, he imparts the following advice to traders: “never panic.” In the intro, reporter Haley Draznin breaks down investor optimism in global equities, the impact of high turnout of U.S. voters, and the halting of Ant Group’s massive I.P.O.

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

Chairman Of Joint Chiefs Tells TV News Anchors Military Won’t Intervene In Election

Chairman Of Joint Chiefs Tells TV News Anchors Military Won’t Intervene In Election

Tyler Durden

Tue, 11/03/2020 – 18:05

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held an off-the-record video meeting with TV anchors from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News in which he asserted that the U.S. military will not intervene in the aftermath of the presidential election.

According to Axios, “The nation’s top military official set up Saturday’s highly unusual call to make clear that the military’s role is apolitical.”

Mark Milley also sought to “dispel any notion of a role for the military in adjudicating a disputed election or making any decision around removing a president from the White House.”

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell, NBC’s Lester Holt, CNN’s Jim Sciutto and Fox’s Martha MacCallum were all participants in the call.

The meeting followed Joe Biden’s recent remark to the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah that he was “absolutely convinced” the military would “escort [Trump] from the White House in a dispatch” if he refused to leave office.

As we highlighted earlier, National Guard troops are already in place in several U.S. cities in preparation for any civil unrest, with polls showing 77% of Americans fearing violence to be likely.

The Biden campaign has already asserted that “under no scenario” will it allow Trump to claim victory tonight.

The former Vice President is also planning to address the nation and “assert control” as the president-elect if he is declared winner by news organizations, even if President Trump refuses to concede.

*  *  *

New limited edition merch now available! Click here.

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

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

Trump, Biden Voters Both Like Government Housing Spending a Lot More Than Housing Development

reason-housing2

Donald Trump and Joe Biden voters diverge wildly on whether to fund low-income housing programs, but both appear unified in opposing new housing being built near them.

That’s according to a survey put out last week by real estate company Redfin, which found that only 24 percent of Trump voters and 32 percent of Biden voters supported zoning policies that allowed denser housing in their neighborhood. That compares to 27 percent of all respondents who said they support denser housing in their neighborhood. The Redfin poll surveyed 3,000 U.S. residents over the second week of October.

“Housing is one of the few types of policies that does not fall neatly into liberal or conservative camps,” Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather said in a statement on the company’s blog. “While many Americans across both major parties can agree that there’s a need for more housing—particularly affordable housing—both Democrats and Republicans are reluctant to see their own neighborhoods become more dense.”

Subsidizing housing proved much more popular with respondents of all political persuasions.

Nearly 75 percent of Biden voters said they’d support government incentives for low-income housing development compared to 49 percent of Trump supporters and 59 percent of all survey respondents. Some 66 percent of Biden supporters and half of Trump supporters supported government incentives to build housing of any kind. Subsidizing down payments on homes for working-class families was less popular, capturing support from only 61 percent of Biden voters and 43 percent of Trump voters.

The survey comes on the tail end of a presidential campaign that’s featured a surprising amount of discussion of housing and zoning policy.

Trump has frequently pitched himself as the defender of the “suburban lifestyle dream” against a would-be Biden administration that Trump says would abolish single-family zoning and force low-income housing (and the resulting urban dysfunction) into tidy, low-density communities.

That’s in contrast to his administration’s earlier, pre-election efforts to encourage local and state governments to deregulate their housing markets in order to allow for higher-density housing. White House budget proposals have consistently called for cutting or even eliminating federal housing and development grants, although none of those cuts have materialized.

Given the low bipartisan support for denser housing in the Redfin poll, it makes sense that Trump would see the preservation of suburban single-family zoning as a wedge issue to exploit.

Rather than appeal to the nation’s NIMBYs (“not in my backyard”), Biden has put forward a housing platform that’s surprisingly pro-deregulation in some aspects. The former vice president has endorsed legislation that would require states and localities to loosen zoning codes and repeal restrictions on new housing as a condition of receiving federal housing and transportation funding.

That’s an approach some free marketers have cheered on. In other ways, however, Biden is a typical regulate-and-spend progressive. He’s promised to beef up regulations on things like mortgage lending and housing appraisals, and massively boost federal spending on aid to homeowners and renters, and on low-income housing construction.

Whatever one thinks of the government housing spending, that money won’t go very far so long as the regulations that drive up the costs of new construction remain on the books. The per-unit costs of building new affordable housing in the high-cost, heavily regulated areas of California are already approaching $1 million.

While Biden voters are relatively less opposed to new housing development in their neighborhoods, their NIMBYism is more likely to have an impact. They’re more likely to live in deep blue, high-cost, amenity-rich cities and inner suburbs where there’s much more demand for higher density housing, and where regulation, therefore, stifles more housing development. Rural Republicans might like apartment buildings less, but it’s also less likely anyone would want to build one next to them even if it were allowed.

Previous polls have found higher baseline support for more neighborhood housing development, but a starker partisan divide on the issue.

A 2019 Cato Institute poll found that 59 percent of Americans support more housing in their neighborhood, including 67 percent of Democrats, 57 percent of independents, and 52 percent of Republicans. Another 2019 poll commissioned by the pro-housing development group California YIMBY (“yes in my backyard”) found that 61 percent of that state’s voters supported more housing development in their neighborhood.

If the Redfin survey is to be believed, however, it suggests that combating the housing shortage in America’s most high-cost areas is an uphill battle that requires convincing a lot more voters of the merits of new housing construction.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32c10YS
via IFTTT

Here’s Who and What Is Winning in State Races and Ballot Initiatives

voting_1161x653

Eleven states (and two territories) are electing governors this evening, and political control of state legislatures is on the table in Texas, Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Montana, Alaska, North Carolina, and a couple of other places.

There are also 120 ballot initiatives under consideration in 32 states covering such issues as drug policy, criminal justice reform, taxes, redistricting, and election systems.

Throughout the evening look for updated results here about the balance of political power within states and the results of important ballot initiatives.

Polls will start to close in East Coast states at 7 p.m. Here are some relevant ballot initiatives that I’m keeping an eye on in those states:

  • In Florida, voters will consider whether to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
  • Also in Florida, voters will consider whether to shift the primary elections away from closed partisan races to a “jungle primary” where all registered voters can vote regardless of party affiliation and all candidates compete in the same pool regardless of party; the top two vote-getters then face off in the general election. This is similar to how state races in California and Washington are held.
  • In Virginia, voters will consider whether to strip the power away from the state legislature to draw congressional and state district boundaries and instead give it to a 16-member commission.

More polls will be closing at 8 p.m. eastern and we’ll have a lot more initiatives to look at then, including marijuana legalization in New Jersey, ranked-choice voting in Massachusetts, and psilocybin decriminalization in District of Columbia.

This post will be updated with new information as more polls close and election results arrive.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32a3JBT
via IFTTT