Americans Dislike Both Biden and Trump

Untitled(5)

On the opening night of the Democratic National Convention, former First Lady Michelle Obama begged voters to resist the urge to refrain from voting or to vote for third-party candidates. “This is not the time to withhold our votes in protest or play games with candidates who have no chance of winning,” the former first lady exhorted whatever audience, perhaps out of masochism, chose to tune in to the virtual convention.

It was a fitting moment of desperation—and one that should be echoed at the Republican convention—given the disdain many Americans hold for the presidential candidates of both legacy parties. Once again, we’re being asked to pick between candidates that just aren’t up to the job.

“As both political parties prepare for their conventions, one in four Americans do not think either of the major-party presidential candidates would be a good president,” Gallup noted last week. “The current percentage saying neither candidate would make a good president is the highest on record.”

Unfortunately, one of those hopefuls is almost certain to win or retain power over a government that has too much say in our lives.

It’s no wonder that in 2016, millions of voters picked Libertarian Gary Johnson or Green Jill Stein or declined to vote at all rather than choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. That year, the Democratic and Republican nominees headed into Election Day “with the worst election-eve images of any major-party presidential candidates Gallup has measured back to 1956.”

The 2020 election represents an ongoing demonstration that America’s governing apparatus is trapped in the embrace of the rotting corpses of once-dynamic political organizations. Democratic and Republican Party hearts and minds may have died, but they refuse to loosen their grip on political office—and on voters.

And, out of habit or old lessons remembered too long, most Americans dutifully confine their choices to these two moldering options, no matter how unpleasant the task. The result, as The New York Times reported in June, is “the second straight presidential contest in which both candidates are viewed negatively by a majority of voters.”

How negatively?

Both legacy party candidates are underwater, favorability-wise. According to Gallup, just 47 percent of Americans view Biden favorably and 42 percent view Trump favorably,

With those kinds of numbers, non-party-loyalists who feel absolutely compelled to pick between the zombie Democrats and zombie Republicans are going more by who they oppose than by enthusiasm for the nominees themselves.

“Half of the nation’s electorate says they have ruled out voting for Donald Trump in November, while 4 in 10 say the same about Joe Biden,” the Monmouth University Polling Institute found last month. “Overall, 21% of all registered voters do not have a favorable opinion of either party’s nominee.”

That process of elimination doesn’t mean that voters ruling out one legacy party nominee are binding themselves to the other. There are alternatives: Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen, a psychology lecturer, seems an apropos alternative as the high-profile candidates credibly accuse each other of senility; the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins is neither Biden nor Trump; and millions of voters will completely take a pass on casting a ballot in-person, by mail, or in any other way.

But chances are that either Donald Trump will retain the presidency, or Joe Biden will displace him. And all the signs point to many Americans casting their votes not for the candidate they like, but rather against the candidate they dislike.

Hate-voting is a growing phenomenon in American politics. “Hostility toward the opposing party has eclipsed positive affect for ones’ own party as a motive for political participation,” researchers reported in a 2018 paper published by Political Psychology. The authors of that paper, Shanto Iyengar and Masha Krupenkin, also found that “while partisan animus began to rise in the 1980s, it has grown dramatically over the past two decades.”

It’s this hostility to political opponents that apparently sustains what’s left of the legacy parties—not for their own sakes, but as counters to the despised opposition. People may not like their own standard-bearers very much, but they prop them up as weapons against the other side.

Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster, political scientists at Emory University, call this “negative partisanship—the phenomenon whereby Americans largely align against one party instead of affiliating with the other.” In a 2018 paper, they describe negative partisanship as “one of the most important developments in American politics over the last 40 years.”

Hate-voting is a hell of a way to run a semi-functioning democracy. It suggests that the government is on ground as shaky as that occupied by the legacy political parties.

“The fact that so many Americans in both the last election and this one have expressed an aversion to each of the major candidates speaks to the heavy polarization that now defines the national electorate—not to mention the wholesale disillusionment many voters feel with the political system,” The New York Times‘s Giovanni Russonello observed.

Perhaps—just a thought here—a political system in which so many Americans have lost faith is one that shouldn’t exercise as much power over people’s lives as does the government with which we’re saddled. When millions of Americans who will have to live with the outcome of the election “do not think either of the major-party presidential candidates would be a good president,” it’s a good sign that the consequences of elections should be less important.

Getting Americans to like each other, let alone doddering legacy party political candidates, is a goal beyond anybody’s reach. But making government less important might lower the stakes a bit so that it doesn’t matter all that much when unfit candidates win office.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2FF5Lll
via IFTTT

Americans Dislike Both Biden and Trump

Untitled(5)

On the opening night of the Democratic National Convention, former First Lady Michelle Obama begged voters to resist the urge to refrain from voting or to vote for third-party candidates. “This is not the time to withhold our votes in protest or play games with candidates who have no chance of winning,” the former first lady exhorted whatever audience, perhaps out of masochism, chose to tune in to the virtual convention.

It was a fitting moment of desperation—and one that should be echoed at the Republican convention—given the disdain many Americans hold for the presidential candidates of both legacy parties. Once again, we’re being asked to pick between candidates that just aren’t up to the job.

“As both political parties prepare for their conventions, one in four Americans do not think either of the major-party presidential candidates would be a good president,” Gallup noted last week. “The current percentage saying neither candidate would make a good president is the highest on record.”

Unfortunately, one of those hopefuls is almost certain to win or retain power over a government that has too much say in our lives.

It’s no wonder that in 2016, millions of voters picked Libertarian Gary Johnson or Green Jill Stein or declined to vote at all rather than choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. That year, the Democratic and Republican nominees headed into Election Day “with the worst election-eve images of any major-party presidential candidates Gallup has measured back to 1956.”

The 2020 election represents an ongoing demonstration that America’s governing apparatus is trapped in the embrace of the rotting corpses of once-dynamic political organizations. Democratic and Republican Party hearts and minds may have died, but they refuse to loosen their grip on political office—and on voters.

And, out of habit or old lessons remembered too long, most Americans dutifully confine their choices to these two moldering options, no matter how unpleasant the task. The result, as The New York Times reported in June, is “the second straight presidential contest in which both candidates are viewed negatively by a majority of voters.”

How negatively?

Both legacy party candidates are underwater, favorability-wise. According to Gallup, just 47 percent of Americans view Biden favorably and 42 percent view Trump favorably,

With those kinds of numbers, non-party-loyalists who feel absolutely compelled to pick between the zombie Democrats and zombie Republicans are going more by who they oppose than by enthusiasm for the nominees themselves.

“Half of the nation’s electorate says they have ruled out voting for Donald Trump in November, while 4 in 10 say the same about Joe Biden,” the Monmouth University Polling Institute found last month. “Overall, 21% of all registered voters do not have a favorable opinion of either party’s nominee.”

That process of elimination doesn’t mean that voters ruling out one legacy party nominee are binding themselves to the other. There are alternatives: Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen, a psychology lecturer, seems an apropos alternative as the high-profile candidates credibly accuse each other of senility; the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins is neither Biden nor Trump; and millions of voters will completely take a pass on casting a ballot in-person, by mail, or in any other way.

But chances are that either Donald Trump will retain the presidency, or Joe Biden will displace him. And all the signs point to many Americans casting their votes not for the candidate they like, but rather against the candidate they dislike.

Hate-voting is a growing phenomenon in American politics. “Hostility toward the opposing party has eclipsed positive affect for ones’ own party as a motive for political participation,” researchers reported in a 2018 paper published by Political Psychology. The authors of that paper, Shanto Iyengar and Masha Krupenkin, also found that “while partisan animus began to rise in the 1980s, it has grown dramatically over the past two decades.”

It’s this hostility to political opponents that apparently sustains what’s left of the legacy parties—not for their own sakes, but as counters to the despised opposition. People may not like their own standard-bearers very much, but they prop them up as weapons against the other side.

Alan Abramowitz and Steven Webster, political scientists at Emory University, call this “negative partisanship—the phenomenon whereby Americans largely align against one party instead of affiliating with the other.” In a 2018 paper, they describe negative partisanship as “one of the most important developments in American politics over the last 40 years.”

Hate-voting is a hell of a way to run a semi-functioning democracy. It suggests that the government is on ground as shaky as that occupied by the legacy political parties.

“The fact that so many Americans in both the last election and this one have expressed an aversion to each of the major candidates speaks to the heavy polarization that now defines the national electorate—not to mention the wholesale disillusionment many voters feel with the political system,” The New York Times‘s Giovanni Russonello observed.

Perhaps—just a thought here—a political system in which so many Americans have lost faith is one that shouldn’t exercise as much power over people’s lives as does the government with which we’re saddled. When millions of Americans who will have to live with the outcome of the election “do not think either of the major-party presidential candidates would be a good president,” it’s a good sign that the consequences of elections should be less important.

Getting Americans to like each other, let alone doddering legacy party political candidates, is a goal beyond anybody’s reach. But making government less important might lower the stakes a bit so that it doesn’t matter all that much when unfit candidates win office.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2FF5Lll
via IFTTT

No, AOC Didn’t Snub Joe Biden

upiphotostwo757259

AOC nominates Sanders. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) spoke to the Democratic National Convention last night for less than two minutes, but that was more than enough time for her to prove the most controversial part of the virtual gathering.

“In a time when millions of people in the United States are looking for deep systemic solutions to our crises of mass evictions, unemployment, and lack of health care, and espíritu del pueblo and out of a love for all people, I hereby second the nomination of Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont for president of the United States of America,” said Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most left-leaning members of Congress in addition to the youngest.

AOC snubs Joe Biden!, or so the story immediately went.

Not so fast. Ocasio-Cortez’s role last night was part of the planned convention procedure, not a way of sticking it to Biden, the party’s presidential nominee.

“Convention rules require roll call & nominations for every candidate that passes the delegate threshold,” explained Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter. “I was asked to 2nd the nom for Sen. Sanders for roll call. I extend my deepest congratulations to @JoeBiden—let’s go win in November.”

Ocasio-Cortez has been calling out NBC for making it seem otherwise:

Sanders’ nomination “was symbolic,” notes USA Today. “Sanders was allowed to keep many of the delegates he would have otherwise lost when he suspended his campaign due to an agreement with the Biden campaign, which was intended to show party unity.”

There wasn’t much for the party’s leftier contingents to like in last night’s convention segment, however. It was about as centrist, status quo, and swampy as you can get, complete with a gushy and sycophantic mini-doc about the friendship between Biden and late Sen. John McCain (R–Ariz.).

Some on the left saw Ocasio-Cortez’s words as a bright spot nonetheless. “Joe Biden is the short-term future of the Democratic party: that much is obvious. But tonight, AOC … gently gestured toward a different kind of long-term future,” writes Holly Baxter at The Independent.

Socialists versus war hawks—yippee!

Either way, we lose.


QUICK HITS

• The new American dream:

• President Donald Trump was demonstrably excited about Laura Loomer’s win:

• State attorneys general are suing to stop planned Postal Service cuts.

• Another hotel is being targeted by advocate lawyers looking to make hotels criminally liable if prostitution takes place in hotel rooms, in the name of fighting “sex trafficking” and “human trafficking.”

• A national Human Fetal Tissue Ethics Advisory Board stacked with a bunch of people who oppose all human fetal tissue research recommended against funding 13 of 14 research proposals under consideration.

• “While navigating a mammoth advertiser boycott and potential federal antitrust charges, Facebook Inc.’s chief financial officer may be most concerned about California’s strict new privacy law.” Here’s why.

• Sex workers in Ireland are fighting for a say in the country’s laws about them:

• “There is now a market, measured in attention and approbation, for anyone who can sniff out a Karen,” writes Helen Lewis, in a piece dissecting The Karen.

• Politico looks at “how the Supreme Court dropped the ball on the right to protest.”

• The Senate Intelligence Committee’s final report on Russia and the 2016 U.S. election was released yesterday.

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

No, AOC Didn’t Snub Joe Biden

zumaamericastwentyeight260042

AOC nominates Sanders. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) spoke to the Democratic National Convention last night for less than two minutes, but that was more than enough time for her to prove the most controversial part of the virtual gathering.

“In a time when millions of people in the United States are looking for deep systemic solutions to our crises of mass evictions, unemployment, and lack of health care, and espíritu del pueblo and out of a love for all people, I hereby second the nomination of Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont for president of the United States of America,” said Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most left-leaning members of Congress in addition to the youngest.

AOC snubs Joe Biden!, or so the story immediately went.

Not so fast. Ocasio-Cortez’s role last night was part of the planned convention procedure, not a way of sticking it to Biden, the party’s presidential nominee.

“Convention rules require roll call & nominations for every candidate that passes the delegate threshold,” explained Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter. “I was asked to 2nd the nom for Sen. Sanders for roll call. I extend my deepest congratulations to @JoeBiden—let’s go win in November.”

Ocasio-Cortez has been calling out NBC for making it seem otherwise:

Sanders’ nomination “was symbolic,” notes USA Today. “Sanders was allowed to keep many of the delegates he would have otherwise lost when he suspended his campaign due to an agreement with the Biden campaign, which was intended to show party unity.”

There wasn’t much for the party’s leftier contingents to like in last night’s convention segment, however. It was about as centrist, status quo, and swampy as you can get, complete with a gushy and sycophantic mini-doc about the friendship between Biden and late Sen. John McCain (R–Ariz.).

Some on the left saw Ocasio-Cortez’s words as a bright spot nonetheless. “Joe Biden is the short-term future of the Democratic party: that much is obvious. But tonight, AOC … gently gestured toward a different kind of long-term future,” writes Holly Baxter at The Independent.

Socialists versus war hawks—yippee!

Either way, we lose.


QUICK HITS

• The new American dream:

• President Donald Trump was demonstrably excited about Laura Loomer’s win:

• State attorneys general are suing to stop planned Postal Service cuts.

• Another hotel is being targeted by advocate lawyers looking to make hotels criminally liable if prostitution takes place in hotel rooms, in the name of fighting “sex trafficking” and “human trafficking.”

• A national Human Fetal Tissue Ethics Advisory Board stacked with a bunch of people who oppose all human fetal tissue research recommended against funding 13 of 14 research proposals under consideration.

• “While navigating a mammoth advertiser boycott and potential federal antitrust charges, Facebook Inc.’s chief financial officer may be most concerned about California’s strict new privacy law.” Here’s why.

• Sex workers in Ireland are fighting for a say in the country’s laws about them:

• “There is now a market, measured in attention and approbation, for anyone who can sniff out a Karen,” writes Helen Lewis, in a piece dissecting The Karen.

• Politico looks at “how the Supreme Court dropped the ball on the right to protest.”

• The Senate Intelligence Committee’s final report on Russia and the 2016 U.S. election was released yesterday.

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

Brickbat: Judge Not That Ye Be Not Judged

gavelandgun_1161x653

Harris County, Texas, Civil District Court Judge Alexandra Smoots-Thomas has been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after going to the home of her husband’s girlfriend, parking her car in the driveway and honking her horn, then shooting at the woman after she came out. Smoots-Thomas has been suspended from duties since last year after being charged with 10 counts of wire fraud after prosecutors said she used campaign funds to pay for jewelry and other luxury items as well as her mortgage.  Nevertheless, Smoots-Thomas is running for re-election.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Yf1AmO
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Judge Not That Ye Be Not Judged

gavelandgun_1161x653

Harris County, Texas, Civil District Court Judge Alexandra Smoots-Thomas has been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after going to the home of her husband’s girlfriend, parking her car in the driveway and honking her horn, then shooting at the woman after she came out. Smoots-Thomas has been suspended from duties since last year after being charged with 10 counts of wire fraud after prosecutors said she used campaign funds to pay for jewelry and other luxury items as well as her mortgage.  Nevertheless, Smoots-Thomas is running for re-election.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Yf1AmO
via IFTTT

GOP Hawks Are Turning Out for Biden

rollcallpix000930

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was the surprise Republican who popped up at Tuesday night’s edition of the Democratic National Convention, where he delivered a blistering assessment of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy and endorsed Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

“With Joe Biden in the White House, you will never doubt that he will stand with our friends and stand up to our adversaries,” Powell said. “He will restore America’s leadership in the world and restore the alliances we need to address the dangers that threaten our nation.”

As if the message wasn’t clear enough, the DNC followed up with a short video retrospective about the cross-aisle friendship between Biden and the late Republican Sen. John McCain.

It’s not all that surprising that some George W. Bush-era Republicans have crossed over to Biden’s side this time around: Trump’s victory in the 2016 Republican primary was a repudiation of the Bush era of Republican politics—a time when Powell and McCain were key players in national politics—and the ill-advised, intractable wars that were launched during it. The Trump era has caused many problems for the Republican Party and for America as a whole, but one of the few good things to come of the last four years has been the exile of the neoconservatives to the political wilderness.

And yet, Trump’s victory over the architects of America’s early 2000s foreign policy disasters seems hollow. He largely failed to follow through on the mandate he was handed by the voters who chose him over his more interventionist opponents in both the Republican primary and the general election.

It’s true that Trump hasn’t launched any new wars. But the number of drone strikes conducted by the U.S. military has risen under his watch. He sent more troops into Afghanistan and is only now drawing those levels back down to where they were when he took office. In a memorable interview with Axios‘s Jonathan Swan a few weeks ago, Trump could offer few specifics about when he would finish off a long-planned withdrawal from America’s longest war. When pressed to say how many troops would remain in Afghanistan on Election Day, Trump said “probably anywhere from four [thousand] to 5,000.”

Instead of bringing the troops home, he’s merely shuffled them around the Middle East with little apparent purpose other than occasionally suggesting that America ought to seize the region’s oil supply.

Trump’s fans say he has reoriented huge amounts of America’s foreign policy, but how much of that is beneficial or lasting? Yes, Trump has picked some silly fights with European leaders and nudged them to contribute a larger share toward NATO.

But everywhere else, Trump has squandered this opportunity. His confrontation with China has imposed millions of dollars of new taxes on American consumers and businesses, failed to produce meaningful changes in U.S.-China trade policy, and potentially set the world’s two biggest economies on course for a new cold war. Surely there must be a more skillful—or at least a less economically damaging way—to oppose China’s illiberal behavior at home and abroad. If only Trump hadn’t alienated the very allies that might make a different approach possible.

Anyone who wants to see America take a less militant approach to the world’s problems shouldn’t be cheering for neocons to build a new nest within the Democratic Party. And the fact that Trump, who has at times seemed legitimately appalled by some of the horrors of war, wasted four years by failing to undo the mistakes Powell and his friends made is a tragedy.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/326hdxW
via IFTTT

Big-Spending Biden

bidenstossel_1161x653

Which presidential candidate will bankrupt America first, Donald Trump or Joe Biden?

Last year, we compared the costs of the leading Democratic candidates’ promises. At that time, Biden, to his credit, proposed the least new spending. Kamala Harris promised the most. She wanted to add $4.2 trillion to America’s debt. Her lavish promises didn’t win her supporters; she dropped out soon after. But now she’s Biden’s running mate, and Biden promises to spend more.

That’s unusual.

Historically, Democrats moved left during the primaries, and then back toward the center once nominated. Not this time. Biden’s people met with Bernie Sanders’ staff and concocted a grotesque orgy of spending. That’s the subject of my video this week.

“Joe Biden has been lurching to the left on federal spending for years, first as a senator, then vice president, now as a presidential candidate,” says Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union. “Tax, spend and borrow is going to bankrupt the nation.”

Originally, Biden proposed $170 billion a year in new “climate” spending. Now, he wants $500 billion. It will go for things like “green infrastructure … more efficient windows … 500,000 charging stations for electric cars.”

“This is the way that governments grow at the expense of the American people,” says Sepp.

I push back. “So they spend it. So what? We’ll have more infrastructure.”

“What we won’t have is infrastructure that’s efficient or effective,” Sepp replies. “We will have holes in the ground and mass transit that people won’t ride.”

Biden wants to spend $77.5 billion more to pay caregivers for children and the elderly.

“A good thing?” I suggest.

I like Sepp’s answer. “Why not leave more money in people’s pockets … so they can afford to provide care for their families? We as taxpayers know better how to take care of our families and ourselves than some distant government.”

Biden wants $64 billion more for housing subsidies, saying, “Housing should be a right.”

“A right to housing” may sound reasonable. So might a right to food, clothing, college, health care, etc.

After all, the Bill of Rights did grant Americans a right to free speech, free exercise of religion and the right to keep and bear arms.

But there’s a key difference. Those rights mean: Government must leave us alone.

But a “right” to housing—or college, health care, etc. means government forcibly takes money from some Americans and gives it to others. That’s very different.

As I write, Biden’s new spending proposals total $1.2 trillion a year.

“We can’t afford it!” complains Sepp. “Sooner or later, every nation faces a reckoning. Joe Biden’s policies, if enacted in full, draw that reckoning even closer.”

I say to Sepp, “We’ve been taxing and spending and borrowing, and except for COVID, we were doing well!”

“Deficits and debt don’t matter until, suddenly, spectacularly, they do!” he replies. “No one ever knows when doomsday happens until it already has. Ask the folks in Greece. Ask the folks in Weimar, Germany.”

The Weimar Republic printed so much money that the price of bread rose from 250 to 200,000 million marks. People brought wheelbarrows full of money with them when wanted to buy something.

Will it happen in America? No one knows. But eventually, we’ll have to pay our debts. A rubber band stretches and stretches but at some point, it breaks.

Our national debt is now a record $26 trillion.

“Deficits and debt destroy economic growth,” says Sepp. “It’s going to hurt the American people. It’s coming.”

Next week, I’ll compare Biden’s spending plans with President Trump’s.

COPYRIGHT 2020 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

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