Thursday, September 19, 2024
The new Puritans: Climate Alarmists Want To Take Away Everything That Makes Life Good
When climate alarmists criticized gas stoves, people warned that they’d try to ban them, the zealots ridiculed the claim and then… tried to ban gas stoves
Then, Climate Depot alerts us to a Bloomberg piece claiming refrigerating food is for planet-destroying losers.
Next they’ll insist they’re not coming for our fridges.
No, really. . Indeed Canary Media, having relabeled natural gas “fossil gas” (nature good, fossil bad), notes with pleasure that:
“After the courts squashed its first-in-the-nation natural gas ban, the city of Berkeley, California, has emerged with a new strategy to curb the planet-warming fossil fuel: taxing large buildings that use it.”
There was a time when people would have celebrated an achievement like having huge numbers of people able to eat fresh, varied food at all kinds of times of year, cooked with a marvelous source of heat that goes on when you want, adjusts instantly, and goes off without requiring a “hot surface” warning that lingers for an hour, in a building whose temperature was Goldilocks, neither too hot nor too cold.
But no, they’re just one more disaster in our catalogue of sins against Gaia, now including your stinking fridge:
“The ‘cold chain’ that delivers our food is inconspicuous but vast. The US alone boasts around 5.5 million cubic feet of refrigerated space (that’s 150 Empire State Buildings!) and three-quarters of the average American plate has spent some time in a commercial fridge. Now, the developing world is catching up.”
Boo developing world! Boo United States! Boo preserving food. Yay pease porridge in a pot three days old. No, wait…
Among the odd things in this puff piece about “Nicola Twilley, author of Frostbite: How Refrigeration Changed Our Food, Our Planet, and Ourselves” is that the author “says this expansion of the world’s ‘distributed winter’ has wide-ranging climate implications.”
No, sorry. That’s not the odd bit. That’s the bit so obvious it almost didn’t need to be written. All bad things cause ‘climate change’, and ‘climate change’ only causes bad things, and all human actions are bad.
The odd bit is the claim that:
“‘Food waste is often touted as the reason to build a cold chain,’ Twilley says on the week’s Zero podcast. ‘The problem is that in the developed world, we are throwing away 30 to 40 percent of our food at the retail and consumer end.’”
Tell us about it. We just took Roz Chast’s classic “Journey to the centre of the refrigerator” and found some items that we had believed were extinct and which, had we eaten them, we might well have become so.
Even so, we feel the wrath of our (especially Scottish) ancestors’ ghosts when we discard anything. But surely a crucial point is that for 99 percent of human history, there was so little to eat that throwing food away really was an act of insanity and people were willing to, say, eat an oyster or a snake, or have an egg somehow get so hot it went white and cloudy and eat it anyway.
Indeed, the piece goes on to mention that:
“More than 30 percent of all food produced on farms in poor nations never makes it to a store, and a cold chain can help reduce that food waste.”
And in those countries, the food that is wasted does result in hunger, even starvation, though thanks to massive expansion of ‘fossil fuel’ use the amount of acute poverty and actual famine in the world has dropped dramatically in the last century and even the last 50 years, outside places where maniacal governments and movements deliberately starve people directly or by waging such a violent war on normal life as to do it as a byproduct.
Of course we in the rich world should be less wasteful. But a degree of abundance so staggering that we can afford to waste food is actually a sign of progress, if also of certain inherent defects in human nature.
Consider Twilley’s complaint that:
“The abundance that refrigeration has given us has translated into a sort of lack of care, a willingness to waste. The food is so plentiful and so cheap that people would rather go and buy something else.
I mean honestly rather than sniff their milk – because obviously sniffing off-milk will kill you, everyone knows that – they would rather pour it out and buy, just trust the sell-by label and buy another pint. And that is an impact of refrigeration too.”
Another way of looking at it is that food is now so cheap that people throw it out because of the government-mandated misleading label about when it’s still good. What a recommendation for capitalism and what an indictment of the state.
Or vice-versa if you’re a climate activist.
Speaking of capitalism, we have even known people with walk-in fridges. And we’re not bitter about their wealth. Well, not very. On the other hand we are a bit annoyed that the author of the book admits she didn’t understand the basic mechanics of fridges until very recently, especially as people like her are generally big enthusiasts for heat pumps.
It’s also annoying that after describing the various economic revolutions including refrigeration that let ordinary people and then the poor in the West eat a lot of meat, she dismisses the notion that meat protein is good for you as “sort of a sad mistake in the history of science”.
We might reserve that description for the government’s advice from the 1970s on to shun “cholesterol” and fat for carbs leading to a populace that didn’t just gorge on muffins but looked like them.
But according to Twilley:
“we could have had a very different world if those scientists had been like, ‘We all need to eat lentils.’ It’s all a sort of misunderstanding, but it shaped our modern food system.”
Either that or steak just tastes better. It’s not as if the poor didn’t have lentils, or know how to stretch food to the utmost, or that nobody knows what they like until some state-funded scientist tells them.
On the contrary, it’s that meat isn’t just a more efficient source of nourishment, it’s also more enjoyable. To the point that those who could afford to would spike the pease porridge with bacon or ham.
Just as those who could get it preferred wheat bread to bean bread back in the Middle Ages, but either way would make do without a bunch of nattering from their betters.
Don’t think it’s just some journalist and some writer prating. Twilley claims the “cold chain” accounts for more than eight percent of global electricity use before she and the interviewer get into the global-warming contribution of refrigeration gas, and then add that the ‘climate-change’ panic (they don’t call it that) is pushing industry back toward poisonous alternatives like ammonia.
From the government, and here to help you… use a substance that:
“wants your crevices apparently, it goes for your eyeballs. It is just really a nasty chemical.”
So yes, the upshot of this apparently fringe prattle really will be compulsory limits on the size and effectiveness of fridges, of the same sort that increasingly make your dishwasher run for two hours or more, and then a push to ban them altogether in favour of root cellars and (organic, locally-sourced) hair shirts.
We do agree with her on one point:
“you really don’t need to have a tomato in December, it’s going to taste like nothing anyway, just don’t do it.”
Except we’d say grow it yourself. And wait for them to snatch away the grow light and irrigation system with a finger-wag about the climate footprint of home gardens, good-tasting food and anything else you like.
*********************************************************
Stick to the Weather, World Meteorological Organization, Africa’s GDP Is Not Declining
The Associated Press (AP) posted a story describing a study by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) which claims climate change is costing Africa as much as 5 percent of its GDP. Data show this is false. Extreme weather has not become more frequent or severe in Africa, and GDP in the different African regions and particular countries cited by the WMO and discussed in the AP story has grown substantially during recent period of climate change.
Monika Pronczuk, the writer of the AP story, “African nations are losing up to 5% of their GDP per year with climate change, a new report says,” uncritically parrots the WMO’s claims that “African nations are losing up to 5% of their GDP every year as they bear a heavier burden than the rest of the world from climate change.”
“‘Over the past 60 years, Africa has observed a warming trend that has become more rapid than the global average,’ said WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo, warning that it is affecting everything from food security to public health to peace,” wrote Pronczuck.
She should have checked the data.
As Climate Realism has discussed repeatedly, hard data from the United Nations and other government and international agencies refute any claims that climate change is making Africa’s weather worse or causing food insecurity. The latter claim has been debunked in repeated Climate Realism articles, here, here, and here, for example, which show that crop yields and production across the continent, except in areas of civil and cross border strife driven by religious and political conflicts, have regularly set records amid modest climate change.
Climate Realism has also shown that recent extreme weather events have not, in fact, been unusual in Africa’s history nor have they been more severe in recent decades, here, here, and here, for instance. In the few countries where food production has been hampered and economic growth has declined across multiple years in Africa, research shows it is consistently due to political strife, from civil wars, cross border conflicts, or political corruption. Climate change has not been a factor.
The main thrust of the WMO report is that because climate change has caused increasingly severe weather, it has also resulted in a GDP decline with African countries having to spend a disproportionate percentage of their incomes mitigating climate change. But since the former is false, the latter is as well. And, indeed, data consistently show substantial GDP growth across the period of recent climate change in the regions and countries discussed in the AP story, and one would presume the WMO report. In fact, the growth rate there has been at or above the world’s average GDP growth rate as a whole. For instance:
Data from the African Development Bank (ADB) shows GDP growth in the region of West Africa at or above 3 percent since 2000, topping 4 percent two of the four years. The further projects growth in each of the countries for the remainder of 2024 and through 2025, stating; “[g]reater agricultural output, expansion in the services sectors, and reforms to strengthen private sector participation in energy and mining are expected to drive growth in Benin (6.4 percent), Gambia (6.2 percent), Togo (6 percent), Mali (4.8 percent), Sierra Leone (4.6 percent), and Burkina Faso (4.1 percent).”
Data from the World Bank show that, excluding the high income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, since 2000, GDP growth in the poorest countries has topped 6 percent five different years, five percent once, 4 percent five times, and only experienced negative growth in a single year, in 2020, the year of the pandemic. The poor countries in Sub-Saharan Africa experienced GDP growth rates of 4.3 percent, 3.7 percent, and 3 percent respectively in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
The AP mentioned Mali and Zambia in particular as countries suffering economic hardship due to climate change, but the data tells a different story. Over the past decade, Mali has seen its GDP grow every year but 2020, with growth topping 5 percent five of the past 10 years (spiking to 7.1 percent in 2014), and topping three percent every other year.
Zambia’s GDP history tells a similar story. Zambia’s growth in 2023 was 5.8 percent, the highest single year during the past decade, and except for the pandemic year of 2020, Zambia’s annual GDP increased, topping 3 percent growth in all but two growth years.
The WMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations whose mandate covers weather, climate, and water resources. It is staffed with meteorologists and other scientists who specialize in weather, not economists, and as such it is not known for its incisive economic acumen or analysis. No one goes to the WMO to analyze economic trends or for its forecasts of economic growth. Based on its uninformed, deeply flawed analysis climate change’s purported threat to Africa’s GDP, it might be a good idea for the WMO to stay in its lane and leave economic forecasting to economists.
Also, it might behoove the AP to do some simple fact checking (it takes just a few minutes through the magic of the internet), looking at existing hard data on trends before promoting economic analyses from organizations without apparent economic expertise. In fact, even when economists pronounce something, its would still be a good idea for the AP to check the data before uncritically parroting a claim as if it were the gospel truth.
******************************************************
Is Climate Change Fanaticism the Greatest Killer of All Time?
How many people are dying each year from climate change lunacy? The left’s immoral war on energy has now become one of the planet’s leading causes of death and infant mortality.
This is the only conclusion from a new 2024 study, finding more than 1 billion people STILL lack access to reliable electric power.
We quote from this deeply disturbing analysis:
Since 2000, access to electricity has increased dramatically across the globe, jumping from 75% of the global population to 90% by 2020. But having access means little when the power is not working, is unreliable, or is too costly to use. For too many around the world, newly gained connections to electricity services have not resulted in meaningful benefits to their daily lives. In a newly released paper, we report that at least 1.18 billion are energy poor and unable to use electricity, a total that is 60% higher than the 733 million people who lack any electricity connection at all in 2020, according to official data.
So here we are in the year 2024 and a population TWICE the size of the United States still has no electricity some 125 years after Edison’s invention of the light bulb!
Energy poverty has become one of the leading causes of death. Then we have a half-trillion-dollar climate change industrial complex (funded by the U.S. government and leftwing tax-exempt foundations) instructing poor nations in Africa and Asia to use LESS electric power and to avoid using coal and natural gas – the most plentiful and cheapest forms of energy.
If this continues, the climate change movement will be responsible for more deaths than Hilter and Stalin combined.
****************************************************
Australia: Clare O’Neil says Greens holding nurses and childcare workers hostage after they managed to delay Help to Buy vote
Greens were right for once. "Help to buy" will simpy jack up prices
Labor has intensified its assault against the Greens after Anthony Albanese was forced to delay a vote on a signature housing bill by two months, with Clare O’Neil accusing the minor party of holding the home ownership aspirations of childcare workers and nurses hostage.
The Prime Minister will visit the Queensland battleground seat of Leichhardt on Thursday to talk up his government’s plans to increase housing supply after the Coalition, One Nation and the United Australia Party’s Ralph Babet backed a Greens amendment to put off a Senate vote on the Help to Buy scheme until November 26.
Independent senators Jacqui Lambie, David Pocock and Tammy Tyrrell sided with Labor to reject the extension, as Mr Albanese warned: “Australians want their leaders to act now to make housing more affordable. This is too important to wait.”
Greens leader Adam Bandt declared the government had two months “to get serious about the housing crisis” and negotiate, while Housing Minister Clare O’Neil insisted the party had offered no amendments.
“What the Greens are doing is holding the aspirations of childcare workers and nurses to own their own home hostage, to generate media and attention,” she said. “This bill is not the silver bullet to Australia’s housing crisis, because there isn’t a silver bullet. Help to Buy is an important piece of the puzzle that would change the lives of 40,000 Australians and their families.”
Under the Help to Buy plan, which was a 2022 Labor election promise, eligible Australians would be able to purchase a home with a minimum deposit of 2 per cent. The government would own up to 40 per cent of a person’s home and recoup its funding, plus its share of capital gain, when the property is sold.
The Greens argue it would help just 0.2 per cent of Australia’s 5.5 million renters and push up housing prices for those who can’t access the program. They have demanded a cap on rent increases, a winding back of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount and money for a “massive” public housing build in exchange for their support.
As Peter Dutton labelled the tensions between Labor and the Greens a “civil war”, Mr Albanese and Queensland Premier Steven Miles will go to the state’s biggest social housing project – with 490 homes due to be built – ahead of work commencing next week.
“In spite of the No-alition of the Liberals, Nationals, Greens and One Nation we are determined to increase housing supply,” Mr Albanese said.
“This project will deliver hundreds of homes in regional Queensland, while complementing our plan to deliver thousands of homes through our Housing Australia Future Fund all around Australia.”
***************************************
All my main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Taylor Swift’s Endorsement of Harris Has Had Minimal Effect, Poll Finds
The night of the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, pop star Taylor Swift decided to use her platform to endorse the Democratic nominee. But as some have pointed out, it did not seem to have the impact the Left thought it would.
The singer, widely known for her catchy tunes about breakups and poor life decisions, wrote, “Like many of you, I watched the debate tonight. If you haven’t already, now is a great time to do your research on the issues at hand and the stances these candidates take on the topics that matter to you the most.”
As part of the multi-paragraph post, Swift officially announced, “I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election”—a decision she said she made in light of Harris being a “steady-handed, gifted leader” and Walz “standing up for LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body.”
And yet, as a recent YouGov poll revealed, that did not appear to sway the minds and hearts of very many. In fact, Swift encouraged her Instagram followers to do their own research and make their own choices, and it seems they are doing just that—independent of Swift’s opinion, for that matter.
According to the survey, which polled 1,120 potential voters Sept. 11-12, 66% of the respondents felt Swift’s public endorsement made no difference in how they would vote. Eight percent—made up of females registered as Democrats—said it made them “somewhat” or “much more likely” to vote for Harris. But notably, 20% said Swift’s post made them “somewhat” or “much less likely” to cast a vote for the Democrat.
Additionally, a plurality of those polled, 41%, said Swift should “not speak publicly about politics,” as opposed to the 38% who said she should, and 21% who were unsure. Very few felt Swift’s endorsement would have a negative effect on the Harris campaign, while the majority, 32%, believed it would have a positive impact. And this was true despite the fact that 66% of those surveyed did not consider themselves fans of the singer.
A similar story unfolded in 2018 when Swift decided to endorse Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s, R-Tenn., opponent, Phil Bredesen, the former governor of Tennessee. The performer reportedly had been “reluctant” to engage in the political arena earlier in her career, but noted that at the time, “due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now.” However, similar to her recent endorsement, it had very little impact, with only 11.7% of surveyed voters saying it “made them more likely to vote for Bredesen.” Blackburn ended up winning that Tennessee election, 54.7% to 43.9%.
Experts at that time noted that “celebrities don’t really have these huge overall game-changing effects” in terms of elections, and “we shouldn’t expect them to.” But that hasn’t stopped Americans from speaking their minds.
Outside of the YouGov survey and inside the world of social media, one user posted, “If you’re old enough to vote, a celebrity endorsement shouldn’t have any effect. Voters need to look at issues not multimillionaires with no world experiences.”
In some cases, moms have posted videos about selling their Taylor Swift concert tickets originally intended for their daughters. And several others have hopped on the “I hate Taylor Swift” trend on X, in which users have been sharing their grievances with both the singer’s announcement and her music at large—a movement being countered by the “I love Taylor Swift” crowd.
The Family Research Council’s Joseph Backholm shared with The Washington Stand not merely what Swift’s endorsement or the resulting poll data means, but what Christians specifically can take away from current events. First, he stated, “Celebrities have the same right to speak their mind as everyone else.” And given America’s First Amendment rights, “no one should feel like they aren’t free to say what they think.”
And while there’s “a lot of evidence [celebrities] don’t make a meaningful difference” in elections, “it’s the most natural thing in the world to be influenced by the people around us,” he pointed out, and it’s “probably unavoidable.” It’s not our responsibility to stop celebrities from sharing their opinions, Backholm said, but “the trick is being aware of who is influencing us and the direction they’re pulling us in.”
For believers, Backholm emphasized, “A key to the Christian life is knowing what voices we should listen to and what voices we [should] ignore,” because “the fact that there will be voices is just a reality of life.” As humans, “We tend to listen to the people we admire or want to be admired by,” which means “we have to make sure the people we esteem are worthy of it in a biblical sense.”
“In voting,” he continued, “as in every decision in life, we should be most interested in God’s opinion” above all else. Because even though “He doesn’t formally make endorsements, He has given us instructions about how to evaluate leadership and the kinds of character traits we should value.” Ultimately, “Scripture also helps us understand what choices will bring blessing, security, and prosperity and what kind of choices will lead to pain.”
“Unless we are more concerned with God’s opinion than the opinion of a celebrity or our social circle,” Backholm concluded, “we will be easily deceived and manipulated.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/17/taylor-swift-support-harris-minimal-impact-poll-finds/
************************************************Trump Is Ultimately Responsible for Assassination Attempts Against Him, Traitor Vindman Says
Alexander Vindman, the retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel of Ukrainian descent whose testimony led the House of Representatives to impeach President Donald Trump in 2019, blamed Trump after a second gunman reportedly attempted to assassinate the former president on Sunday.
Vindman’s brother, Yevgeny who goes by Eugene, is running for Congress as a Democrat in the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., and his Republican opponent has called on Eugene Vindman to condemn his brother’s statement as a matter of character.
“Only one presidential candidate, [Donald Trump] has called for persecution and violence against his opponents,” Vindman posted on X. “Trump has provided the permission for political violence and likely engendered from the mentally ill, the attacks on himself.”
Eugene Vindman condemned the assassination attempt, but appears not to have condemned his brother’s rhetoric.
“I am deeply disturbed by yet another attempt of political violence in our nation,” the candidate posted on X. “I am grateful that no one is hurt, and thankful for the law enforcement agents who acted bravely and swiftly in the line of duty.”
Alexander Vindman’s wife, Rachel, published three posts after the shooting, before deleting them and apologizing on Monday. “No ears were harmed,” she posted, referencing the first assassination attempt, in which a bullet grazed Trump’s right ear. “Carry on with your Sunday afternoon.”
She added a post with laugh emojis stating, “Sorry you’re triggered. I mean no I’m not. I don’t care a little bit.”
“Trump has been inciting violence against his enemies for years,” she added in a third post. “He douses a situation in gasoline, lights a match, & walks away claiming no responsibility.”
Derrick Anderson, Eugene Vindman’s Republican opponent, faulted the Democrat for failing to condemn “the horrible statements by his family members and political advisors.”
“In fact, the Vindman family has actually doubled and tripled down on their hateful rhetoric and are now justifying the second failed assassination attempt on Trump,” Anderson said. “A dangerous precedent.”
Anderson is running in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, a swing district that could go Republican or Democrat in November. Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger, the incumbent, declined to run for reelection, announcing that she would run for governor in 2025 instead.
“While my opponent is failing the leadership and decency test as we speak, I will always stand up to do what is right for [Virginia’s 7th Congressional District], my home, the place that raised me,” Anderson added. “The American people must be our priority over partisan politics right now.”
After The Daily Signal reached out to Eugene Vindman and Alexander Vindman for comment, Rachel Vindman deleted her posts and issued an apology.
“I have deleted my tweet,” she wrote. “It was flippant & political violence is a serious issue. Whether it’s aimed at a former president, the media, immigrants, or political ‘enemies’ & every incident should be addressed appropriately if we want to change the tenor of our political discourse.”
She added that she has “known the instant fear of receiving an unknown package or letter” and has had her child ask “if we were safe and if someone was going to hurt our family.”
**************************************************
12 Influencers Who Called for Violence Against Trump, Called Him an ‘Existential Threat to Democracy’
Ahead of the second assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump, many influential actors, journalists, and influencers warned that Trump is an “existential threat” to democracy, compared him to Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, and suggested he or his supporters should face violent attacks. Some continued attacking Trump even after the first assassination attempt July 13.
The New Tolerance Campaign, a nonprofit watchdog aimed at confronting “intolerance double standards” practiced by “establishment institutions, civil rights groups, universities, and socially conscious brands,” compiled a list of extreme rhetoric against Trump that may have contributed to the second assassination attempt.
“New Tolerance Campaign research has shown two kinds of consistent and consistently charged rhetoric surrounding President Trump: insistence that his reelection would lead to the collapse of the country, and calls for the former president’s death,” Gregory T. Angelo, New Tolerance Campaign’s president, told The Daily Signal in a written statement Monday. (New Tolerance Campaign has taken to exposing extremism on the Left, to balance the impact of left-leaning groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center.)
“These proclamations aren’t sarcastic; they’re literal, and they’re being spoken by high-profile politicians and members of the mainstream media with massive audiences,” Angelo added. “It’s shocking that there have been two attempts on President Trump’s life, but not surprising given the existential hyperbole about him pounding Americans’ ears day in and day out.”
Other Violent Threats to Trump
Both Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, who authorities say shot Trump in the right ear July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania, and Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, the man suspected of planning to assassinate the former president Sunday at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, got surprisingly close to the former president.
However, New Tolerance Campaign identified five others who faced charges for threatening to harm or kill Trump.
In January 2021, a judge sentenced 53-year-old Connecticut resident Gary Joseph Gravelle to nine years in prison after his conviction for sending a letter threatening to kill Trump in September 2018.
In January 2022, police arrested and charged New York City resident Thomas Welnicki, 72, with calling the Secret Service and threatening to kill Trump. He proclaimed that he intended to “stand up to fascism” by assassinating the former president.
In August, police arrested Arizona resident Ronald Lee Syvrud, 66, and charged him with threatening Trump’s life during the former president’s campaign trip to the Copper State.
In July, police arrested and charged Florida resident Michael M. Wiseman, 68, with making written threats to kill Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, after the assassination attempt in Butler.
Last month, police arrested and charged Illinois resident Justin Lee White, 36, with repeatedly threatening Trump, police, and Republicans with violence if the former president didn’t “play fair” during the election campaign.
Where would Welnicki get the idea that standing up to “fascism” involves targeting Trump? The full list of left-leaning pundits, celebrities, and politicians who compared Trump to Hitler would be too long to compile. But New Tolerance Campaign highlighted many examples
*************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Wednesday, September 18, 2024
Harris’ ‘Two-State Solution’ Would ‘Wipe Israel Off the Map’
It’s been almost a year since the Hamas terrorist organization attacked Israel on Oct. 7. The massacre left over 1,200 people dead and over 200 kidnapped—including women, men, and children. Since the attack, the Biden administration has made its support for a two-state solution clear. And now, with Vice President Kamala Harris running as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, it appears nothing has changed.
During Tuesday’s debate between the vice president and the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Harris restated her support for a cease-fire and two-state solution, which, as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins explained on Thursday’s episode of “Washington Watch,” would ultimately “transfer the geographical heart of the state of Israel, Judea and Samaria, to the Palestinians.”
Harris declared, “We must chart a course for a two-state solution, and in that solution, there must be security for the Israeli people and Israel and an equal measure for the Palestinians.” But experts on the ground in Israel like Caroline Glick say that a two-state solution is not a viable option.
First, Glick emphasized on “Washington Watch” how Harris’ comments during Tuesday’s debate are likely to “lower her level of support” in Israel. As a senior contributing editor at the Jewish News Syndicate, Glick and her colleagues have been conducting polls “of Israeli sentiments regarding the presidential race.” As she stated, after their most recent update shortly before the presidential debate, “Trump was leading by more than two-thirds of Israelis supporting him over Kamala Harris.” She added, “I assume that next week when we poll that question,” the results will be similar.
Glick further noted that Harris made potentially “the most hostile statement ever made by a major presidential candidate, by a nominee of one of the major parties, regarding Israel in history. … Her hostility toward Israel was stunning.”
Glick explained how the attack on Oct. 7 was the “most sadistic” slaughter Israel has seen, and yet, Harris’ stance seems to reflect that she sees a cease-fire as a way to “pay the Palestinians.” And while it is true that many Palestinian civilians have died over this past year, Glick asserted that this was still “very much an invasion of Palestinian society into Israel, not just Hamas.”
According to Glick, some military estimates found that out of the 10,000 people that entered Israel from Gaza during the attack, 5,000 to 6,000 were Hamas members, and the rest were Palestinian civilians. And so, Perkins noted, when considering the fact that Harris wants a solution that’s in “equal measure for the Palestinians,” it becomes even clearer how the Biden-Harris administration’s “support of Israel has been tepid at best.” Moving forward, he asked, is it possible policies under a potential Harris-Walz administration would be “even more indifferent toward Israel or outright hostile?”
In response, Glick emphasized how, should Harris get elected, America could expect to see more hostility toward Israel. “I think that what Kamala Harris showed at the debate … is that an America under her presidency will not allow Israel to do anything beyond intercepting missiles en route to Israel” and will not allow the Jewish state to take “offensive actions against our enemies, whether it’s Iran or the Palestinians or Hezbollah.”
Glick pointed out how Harris said she “will always support Israel’s right to defend itself,” but that doesn’t change the fact that “the United States right now continues to embargo 2,000-pound bunker buster bombs to Israel, because they don’t want us to take offensive action that will effectively diminish the capacities of our enemies.”
Returning to the topic of the two-state solution, Perkins addressed how the land in question includes a “small strip of the Gaza Strip,” the home of the people attacking Israel. Considering this, he asked, how would Israel be able to defend itself if its land “is given away to a hostile entity?”
“It can’t,” Glick said somberly. “It manifestly cannot do so.” Which is “the problem,” she added, because “people talk about the two-state solution as if this is some sort of responsible policy, but it’s not.” Rather, it establishes “a Palestinian state, causing Israel to renounce our rights to our biblical homeland” and paves the way for “Israel to be defeated.”
Glick concluded, “[G]iving people whose goal in life is to annihilate the Jewish state and the Jewish people … sovereignty over the West Bank of the Jordan of Judea and Samaria” means “giving them the keys to the realm. You are telling them, ‘Go ahead, wipe Israel off the map.’
***************************************************
What doesn’t kill Trump makes him stronger
As if there hadn’t been enough drama in America in 2024, Donald Trump has survived another assassination attempt.
The attempted killing of the 45th president at his golf course in Palm Beach, Florida yesterday afternoon was not nearly as threatening as nine weeks ago in Butler, Pennsylvania. Secret Service, who have faced so much criticism for their failings in Butler, found the would-be killer’s weapon before he was able to target Trump, shots were fired, and the suspect appears to have been arrested fleeing the scene.
What took place in Florida will show voters that a lot of people want Trump dead
It’s still big news. Questions will rightly be asked as to how an armed man was again able to get so close to Trump. At a press conference yesterday, an official said that, had Trump been a sitting president, the entire course would have been secured in advance. Given the recency of the last attempt of Trump’s life, that seems an oversight. Trumpworld is already suggesting it is another conspiracy.
That may be more mad talk – yet the incident could still prove to be a major moment in the presidential campaign, chiefly because it brings to mind the ongoing threat to Trump’s life. And it will remind voters of his narrow escape in Pennsylvania and his extraordinary courage under fire.
After all the drama surrounding Kamala Harris’s elevation to the top of the Democratic ticket, Trump’s ‘fight fight fight!’ response that Saturday evening in July had somehow faded from the public consciousness.
Last week, in the debate in Pennsylvania, Trump said ‘he probably took a bullet to the head’ because of Biden and Harris’s inflammatory rhetoric against him. But the remark was largely ignored. Most commentary focused on his poor debate performance and Trump tirades about rallies and Haitians eating pets in Ohio.
Yet what took place in Florida yesterday will show voters that a lot of people want Trump dead. That will probably boost his appeal among people who don’t. Trump is an extraordinary political candidate, who thrives off enmity, and whatever doesn’t kill him makes him stronger. Sure enough, last night the betting markets improved in Trump’s favour.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/what-doesnt-kill-trump-makes-him-stronger/
**************************************************‘The Science’ Lights Their Last Bit Of Credibility On Fire For Kamala Harris
Scientific American, a supposedly prestigious science magazine founded in 1845, lit a fire to its last shred of credibility Monday by endorsing Kamala Harris for president.
The journal has only made presidential endorsements twice, the first time being in 2020 when the editorial board backed then-candidate Joe Biden, a very erudite and scientific man with the scholarly sensibilities of a Victorian gentleman. In an equally fawning and delusional endorsement, the editors at Scientific American practically salivate at the idea of a Kamala presidency.
“She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy,” they write of Harris. “She supports education, public health and reproductive rights. She treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is and seeks to mitigate its catastrophic storms, fires and droughts.” (Click HERE to sign up for John’s weekly newsletter)
The editors also note that as president she would be “relying on science” (read, “left-wing orthodoxy”), “solid evidence” (read, “data and numbers cooked by hacks and government bureaucrats”), and a “willingness to learn from experience” (we’d hope so, but read, “complete lack of self-awareness”).
On Donald Trump, however, the editors argue that he “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”
Trump “goads people into hate and division, and he inspires extremists at state and local levels to pass laws that disrupt education and make it harder to earn a living,” they write, breathlessly.
I’m not here to debunk every point the editors make in support of Harris, and I’m not here to argue why a Trump presidency would be good for science (who’s sitting in the Oval Office should really have no bearing on whether science flourishes in America). That would take far too long, and far too many Zyns, and I frankly don’t care.
I simply want to point out the utter absurdity that a journal of science, certainly one that seeks to maintain its authority and credibility in a social media world where former credible authorities have been all but destroyed, would ever want to jump into politics in such a crude, pedestrian manner for such an unimpressive and unintelligent candidate.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testifies before the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus, Washington, DC, June 3, 2024. Fauci was to many, the public face of government response to the coronavirus and a frequent target of Republican lawmakers’ ire arising from the shutdown.
Aside from virtue signaling and making themselves feel morally superior, what is the upside of Scientific American endorsing a political candidate? No voter cares about what they have to say about politics, and no swing voter in Pennsylvania or North Carolina will read their litany of propaganda and say to themselves, “Well, sheeit, that’s the one. Harris for president.” They are only harming themselves, and for a magazine that was recently dunked on by a former columnist for being too left-wing, this is not the move. (RELATED: Former Columnist Exposes Scientific American’s Sudden Descent Into Left-Wing Ideology)
For a long time, it seems, ‘The Science’ has been turning into a refuge for careerists and hacks, ideologues and do-gooders, bureaucrats such as Tony Fauci or C-list actors such as Bill Nye, all of whom have the combined mental acuity of a braindead cow. Maybe this has always been the case, throughout all of history. Maybe ‘The Science’ was the Catholic Church when Galileo challenged its biblical worldview. Maybe ‘The Science’ hated the fact that Albert Einstein was just a humble patent clerk, a lone wolf working on the periphery of institutions.
I don’t know. What I do know is that, when a history of science in the 21st Century is written, Scientific American will be but a footnote, if that.
https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/17/scientific-american-kamala-harris-endorsement/
*************************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
Americans Are Losing Hope in the American Dream
The “American dream” has long been a cornerstone of our national identity—the idea that any citizen of the United States, regardless of upbringing or background, can work his or her way to prosperity. It is why nearly 1 in 5 businesses in the country are owned by first-generation Americans. It is borne out in the sharp increase over the past 20 years in college students from economically distressed households. It is also reflected in the “income advancements” we have seen among American families over the past 30 years.
Despite the upward mobility experienced by millions, the American people are losing hope. In newly released polling data published by our organization, the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, 66% of Americans polled believe the concept of the American dream has become “less attainable” over the last 10 years. Only 9% of Americans think the dream has become more attainable.
About 40% of American voters say the American dream is out of reach for them, with young people most likely to agree. It is also a pessimistic sentiment more pronounced for black Americans, who were the least likely to say they have achieved it.
Overall, only 1 in 5 of voters believe they have reached the American dream.
While it is disappointing to see Americans lose hope, it is also an expected outcome after the surging inflation of the past several years. Prices of goods are up an average of 20% since President Joe Biden took office. An analysis published by the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee late last year estimated that, due to inflation, the average household would need to spend an additional $11,434 annually just to maintain their same standard of living they had prior to January 2021.
The situation has become so dire for some that it was recently reported that more Americans are being forced to choose between paying for food and paying their energy bills. One mother admitted to CBS News, “Sometimes I have to choose whether I’m going to pay the light bill, or do I pay all the rent or buy food or not let my son do a sport?” This is the crushing reality for far too many families as they have tried to stay afloat while coping with the 40-year-high inflation that has gripped prices nationwide.
Homeownership—long considered a staple of the American dream—has also become more difficult for families to achieve. Soaring interest rates, needed to curb runaway inflation, have increased mortgage rates, creating an affordability crisis. A CNN poll found that the overwhelming majority of Americans currently renting “would like to buy a home but can’t afford one.” More than 50% of those asked feel they’ll never be able to own their own home.
It is estimated that due to the rising mortgage interest rates and property costs, “home buyers now need to earn $47,000 more than they did in 2020”—an increase of 80%—to be able to comfortably buy a home, according to a report by Zillow. This is demoralizing for those simply trying to purchase a family home.
All these factors are making Americans less optimistic about their future and their children’s future. Our polling found that more than 50% of Americans believe the United States will be worse off down the road. This national pessimism is toxic for the future of America. If we are going to course correct and deliver a tomorrow that inspires today’s workforce, we need smart policies that will help families climb out of the financial hardships they have had to face over the past several years.
To restore faith in the American dream, we must re-imagine it for today’s world. At the Rainey Center, we have focused our commitment on advancing innovative and actionable solutions that demonstrate a capacity to address some of the nation’s most complex challenges, from advocating for economic empowerment to boosting domestic energy production.
One of the crucial policies we have advocated for is permitting reform, which includes commonsense measures that will lower energy costs for families, lead to more infrastructure development, and reduce bureaucratic red tape. It is also a policy that has broad bipartisan support from the American people—and voters want to see reform, so it is easier to build infrastructure in America. The next administration should immediately move to deregulate energy production and invest in energy innovation to reverse the current economic trend.
The path forward requires policies that both preserve the integrity of the American dream and make it accessible once again. By encouraging fresh ideas, institutions like the Rainey Center—in their collaboration with policymakers at every level of government—can lay the foundation for a new era of opportunity—one where all Americans, regardless of background, can share in the promise of prosperity. Only by embracing bold, inclusive solutions can we ensure the dream remains a tangible goal for future generations.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/13/americans-are-losing-hope-american-dream/
***********************************************Kamala Harris, Pro-Crime Candidate for President
The negative effects of California’s Proposition 47 are well known—a surge in theft, chaos, and lawlessness. Prop 47, a ballot measure approved by voters in 2014, reclassified nonviolent larceny as a misdemeanor so long as the value of the goods stolen is less than $950.
This results are seen in horrifying videos of criminals brazenly riding bikes into drugstores and plundering shelves, stealing bags full of merchandise while impotent clerks and security guards haplessly watch the crime unfold.
What’s less known is that Vice President Kamala Harris was a key champion of getting Prop 47 approved.
Progressives like Harris often bemoan what they describe as “food deserts,” a lack of grocery stores offering more healthy foods in poorer areas.
The truth is, politicians such as Harris who encouraged the very lawlessness that drove out the drugstores and grocery stores don’t advise constituents to stop looting. They punish business owners instead.
The good thing is that California voters have a chance to repeal Proposition 47 through a countermeasure this fall called Prop 36. If voters approve the ballot question, Prop 47 will die.
Harris, however, wants to impose her terrible California worldview nationwide. Harris, the state’s former attorney general, supports ending cash bail for violent criminals.
Democrats’ presidential nominee even helped raise bail money for violent rioters in 2020, including murderers and serial domestic abusers in Minnesota during the George Floyd riots. Sadly, one of those criminals Harris helped free from jail went on to kill someone.
Harris claims to be a candidate of law and order, yet she proposed allowing dealers to sell drugs without fear of criminal prosecution. She prefers that drug dealers face charges only after the third time they are arrested.
“Kamala Harris was the most liberal and progressive district attorney I worked with in over 30 years in the SFPD,” said Kevin Cashman, former deputy chief of the San Francisco Police Department.
Now that’s a difficult title to claim in a liberal city like San Francisco.
But this title makes sense when you know that Harris released a violent MS-13 gang member, Edwin Ramos. Ramos was convicted of murdering a father and his two sons after being released.
Harris shielded illegal immigrant drug dealers from prison. She wiped clean their criminal records and coddled them with job training, even as millions of U.S. citizens are unemployed. Unfortunately, one of these illegal aliens violently assaulted a woman, fracturing her skull.
Harris refused to seek the death penalty against cop killer David Hill. Even the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., disagreed with Harris’ blatant disregard for the law. She criticized Harris for it.
Harris allowed criminals who punched and spit on cops to avoid jail time.
As district attorney of San Francisco, Harris was weak on gun-carrying criminals. The San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2006: “Police have also challenged Harris over whether she is living up to her promises to get tougher on gun crimes.”
Harris also failed in the courtroom as a prosecutor. San Francisco Weekly reported in 2010: “In the first quarter of 2010, things got worse. During that time, Harris’ office secured guilty verdicts in just 53 percent of its felony trials —a remarkable figure, revealing that defendants accused of serious crimes who took their case to trial had an even one-in-two shot at winning an acquittal.”
Harris’ record as San Francisco district attorney, The Washington Free Beacon reports, includes “lenient plea deals and probation for a string of career criminals—a serial domestic abuser who later murdered his girlfriend, a repeat felon who gunned down a newspaper editor in Harris’ hometown of Oakland, and others.”
Harris was such a crime-friendly district attorney, SF Gate reported, that San Francisco police were forced to do an “end run around Harris’ office by taking several gang-related homicide cases to federal prosecutors.”
For the first time in the history of California, which was founded in 1850, the state is losing a congressional district. That means California is losing people big time.
Residents are fleeing California’s crime for places such as Florida and Texas because of Harris’ failed policies and governance, in San Francisco and statewide.
If Harris becomes president, Americans will have nowhere else to flee because she’ll be running the entire country. We deserve better.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/14/kamala-harris-pro-crime-candidate-for-president/
*******************************************************Cracking The ‘Semantic Games’ Media Use To Make Kamala Look Good
A couple of months ago, everyone agreed Kamala Harris was the worst VP in American history. Now, she’s heralded as the Savior of the Republic.
At first glance, that’s seemingly all it took. After a couple of months of media praise, Harris is up in the polls as the American people seem to have forgotten her long history of radicalism and failure. But is it really that simple?
The Daily Caller’s new documentary, “Cleaning Up Kamala,” shows that the media didn’t simply will this new, “joyful” Kamala into existence. They followed a carefully planned formula to deceive the American people.
Democrats and the media love to talk about The Big Lie: the idea that you can simply repeat a lie over and over again until people believe it. Yet like most things with the Democrat-media complex, this is bait and switch.
Don’t fall for it. Their own lying is far more subtle. As the Daily Caller’s investigative team shows, their lies use “semantic games” to spin half-truths into larger, false narratives. Often, the broad takeaway inverts reality entirely.
Take the lie that Kamala Harris never had anything to do with the Defund the Police movement.
We all know she spent the violent Summer of 2020 cagily tip-toeing around left-wing radicalism. We know she supported the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which bailed rioters out of jail. Yet PolitiFact, one of the nation’s most prominent mainstream fact-checkers, called Donald Trump a liar when he said she supported the Defund the Police movement.
How’d they pull this one off?
Here’s Trump’s full quote:
“They want to defund, she [Harris] wants to defund the police, now she’s pulled back on it,” Trump said at a rally. Note that he uses the past tense.
Now, compare that to was Harris’ said in interviews during the Summer of Love:
“This whole [Defund the Police] movement is about rightly saying we need to take a look at these budgets and figure out whether it reflects the right priorities. For too long, the status quo thinking has been you get more safety by putting more cops on the street. Well, that’s wrong,” Harris said on CNN.
This seems to jive with what Trump’s saying. So how does PolitiFact explain rating Trump’s quote as “mostly false?” It all comes down to tenses. They called him a liar for using the present tense, saying Harris “wants” to Defund the Police, even though he clarified that she’s since changed her mind, apparently. Yet they ignore the immediate contextualization in order to call him a liar.
“They know what they’re doing, and unfortunately, a lot of these fact checking websites are getting away with it,” explains Amber Athey, Washington Editor of The Spectator.
This obscures the whole debate about how Harris’ policies evolved, or what they even are. What we should be talking about is how Harris flip-flopped; was she lying then, or if she’s lying now? Instead, the onus falls on Trump. Countless people see this “fact check” and rest assured that Trump is the liar. Harris’ lies aren’t just irrelevant, they all but cease to exist.
As always with Democratic lies, a half-truth inverts the broader reality. The liar gets off scot-free and the truth teller is branded a liar.
This is just one of the many tricks the media re-brand used to re-brand Kamala Harris as a modern day messiah. Watch “Cleaning Up Kamala” today to discover all the dirty tricks they have up their sleeves.
https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/16/media-kamala-harris-daily-caller-documentary/
*************************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Monday, September 16, 2024
Trump’s road map for taking ‘woke’ out of American education
Donald Trump is vowing to take what he describes as wokeness out of America’s schools if he is elected president. He and allies have a road map for doing so.
The former president has said he would deploy federal powers to pressure schools and universities that he considers to be too liberal. One strategy that he has described would launch civil-rights investigations of schools that have supported transgender rights and racial diversity programs. Another tactic would use the college accreditation system, which sets standards for schools, to scale back diversity goals.
Conservatives have previously decried the use of federal agencies – sometimes derisively called the “deep state” – by Democrats. Now, Trump and his allies have suggested they want to turn the tables.
Unlike many of Trump’s other education proposals — including punishing schools that require vaccines, creating an anti-”woke” online university, and instituting “universal school choice” — these new tactics wouldn’t require state or congressional cooperation. They would likely kick up a legal fight, from school systems, universities and LGBTQ advocates, among others.
In speeches, Trump has also repeatedly pledged to abolish the Education Department.
Trump representatives pointed to his campaign website when asked for further details.
Critical race theory targeted
“Our public schools have been taken over by the radical left maniacs,” Trump said in a campaign video earlier this year. “We will cut federal funding for any school or program pushing critical race theory.” Conservatives have used the term “critical race theory” as a catch-all for liberal ideas about race.
Trump’s platform promises to investigate “any school that engages in race-based discrimination,” though it doesn’t specify which programs he would target.
Several common practices in schools might be subject to scrutiny, said R. Shep Melnick, a professor at Boston College who has studied civil-rights law. Those could include initiatives focused on helping Black or Hispanic students succeed in class; diversity offices that cater mainly to non-white student groups; and lessons on white privilege.
Since last year’s Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in college admissions, conservatives have brought lawsuits against race-conscious access programs that they say discriminate against white and Asian people.
The threat of an investigation can be as effective as an actual inquiry, according to legal analysts. A few high-profile cases could cause many institutions to change their practices.
“There’s a chilling effect here that cannot be understated,” said Jasmine Bolton, a former civil-rights lawyer in the Biden administration’s Education Department.
‘Transgender insanity’ and Title IX
The Biden administration has interpreted Title IX — the 1972 law that bars sex-based discrimination in educational institutions — to protect transgender people, too. (This rule has been halted by courts in much of the country.)
By contrast, Trump has criticised what he describes as “transgender insanity” in schools. He has suggested that he would flip the Biden’s interpretation of Title IX to say that certain accommodations for transgender people would amount to sex-based discrimination. Trump’s campaign site says he would use the law to bar “men from participating in women’s sports.” In 2020, the Trump administration threatened to pull federal funding from some Connecticut schools over a policy allowing transgender girls to play on female sports teams. Upon taking office, the Biden administration dropped the effort.
Sarah Parshall Perry, a former Trump administration Education Department official and a legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said a Title IX violation could occur “when we find biological girls” losing access to “privacy or private spaces,” such as when transgender students use bathrooms or locker rooms aligned with their stated gender identity.
Accreditation as a ‘secret weapon’ Conservatives have criticised accreditation agencies — which set standards for colleges and control access to federal student-aid dollars — as being meddlesome, particularly in campus diversity initiatives.
The agencies are granted recognition by the Education Department, with the help of an advisory committee. Some have called on schools to close gaps in minority graduation rates, or explicitly support the concept of equity.
Trump has signalled intentions to give schools more wiggle room on diversity efforts by up-ending that accreditation system, a tactic he has called his “secret weapon.” Analysts have said such a move could include stripping recognition from some agencies, approving more alternatives, or loosening their watchdog mandates.
Michael Poliakoff, a member of the accreditation advisory committee, and head of the conservative-leaning non-profit American Council of Trustees and Alumni, called accreditors “intrusive” and “micromanaging” and said they have grown overly prescriptive.
Poliakoff’s group served on the advisory board of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, considered by many conservatives as a blueprint for the next administration, although Trump has disavowed it.
The Education Department under Trump limited accreditors’ oversight authority in 2019, including by allowing colleges to get approval from accreditors outside their regions.
Legal fights ahead A new Trump Education Department might face legal hurdles. The Supreme Court recently stopped giving agencies, such as the Education Department, broad leeway in interpreting federal law. Future high-court decisions on transgender rights and race-based policies could affect how the next administration enforces civil-rights law.
Alberto Carvalho, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, the country’s second-largest, said he is troubled by Trump’s education promises and would be willing to fight them in court. The district receives hundreds of millions in federal dollars.
“We would pursue every opportunity available to us to defend, to protect, to assert the rights of our students,” he said. “I think that we would not be alone in this.”
*************************************************************
Independent and Undecided Voters Largely Aligning with Trump Post-Debate
Tuesday night’s debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump has been touted as either a draw or a Harris victory by mainstream media pundits, but Independent and undecided voters saw the evening differently. Multiple polls are showing that a majority of undecided voters either decided on backing Trump or leaned towards that decision following the debate. Reuters conducted interviews with a focus group of 10 undecided voters, six of whom said that they would support Trump following the debate. Only three said they would back Harris, while a final voter was still undecided.
“Harris and Trump are in a tight race and the election will likely be decided by just tens of thousands of votes in a handful of battleground states, many of whom are swing voters like the undecided voters who spoke to Reuters,” the news agency noted. “The Trump converts said they trusted him more on the economy, even though all said they did not like him as a person. They said their personal financial situation had been better when he was president between 2017-2021,” Reuters continued, adding, “Four of those six also said Harris did not convince them she would pursue different economic policies than Democratic President Joe Biden, a Democrat they largely blame for the high cost of living.”
Most of the undecided voters interviewed by Reuters said that Harris spent too much time attacking Trump and was “vague” on her own policies. “I still don’t know what she is for. There was no real meat and bones for her plans,” 61-year-old Floridian Mark Kadish told Reuters. Robert Wheeler, a 48-year-old Nevadan, told Reuters that he had been leaning towards Harris prior to the debate but decided on Trump after watching the vice president’s performance. “I felt like the whole debate was Kamala Harris telling me why not to vote for Donald Trump instead of why she’s the right candidate,” Wheeler commented.
The New York Times also interviewed a slate of undecided voters, most of whom were unimpressed with Harris’s showing on debate night. Most voters said that Harris “did not seem much different from Mr. Biden,” and while they acknowledged that Harris “laid out a sweeping vision to fix some of the country’s most stubborn problems,” she offered no details or “fine print” regarding how she would achieve that vision.
While most undecided voters named by NYT simply remained undecided following the debate, a number skewed in favor of Trump. Keilah Miller, a 34-year-old black woman living in Milwaukee, said she had been leaning toward Harris but was disappointed by the vice president’s debate performance. “Trump’s pitch was a little more convincing than hers. I guess I’m leaning more on his facts than her vision,” Miller said. “When Trump was in office — not going to lie — I was living way better. I’ve never been so down as in the past four years. It’s been so hard for me.”
Voter analysis from Fox News also found that Independent voters supported Trump’s positions, expressed in the debate, on immigration and the economy. Even Democrats liked what Trump had to say about taxes, jobs, and inflation. Pollster Lee Carter told Fox News, “Independents are tracking very much with Republicans. They’re looking for a couple of things. They’re looking for answers on immigration, they’re looking for answers on the economy. They want to hear that things will get better for them and they also want change from what is happening right now.” Carter continued, “One of the most important things they were looking for last night from Kamala Harris is how are you going to make it different?”
A post-debate poll from CNN found that while a majority (63%) of voters said that Harris did better overall, Trump performed better on issues of the greatest importance to voters. Trump garnered a 20-point lead (55% to 35%) over Harris when voters were asked who would do better on economic issues, and an even-wider 23-point lead (56% to 33%) on immigration issues. Trump was also ranked a better “commander-in-chief” (49% to 43%) than Harris.
As polling data comes trickling in, Harris has requested a second debate against Trump. So far, the 45th president has refused to commit to a second debate, posting on Truth Social, “In the World of Boxing or UFC, when a Fighter gets beaten or knocked out, they get up and scream, ‘I DEMAND A REMATCH, I DEMAND A REMATCH!’ Well, it’s no different with a Debate.” Trump added, “She was beaten badly last night… so why would I do a Rematch?”
*************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Sunday, September 15, 2024
Exposing Chameleon Kamala Harris and the great US debate con job
Kamala Harris is attempting to win the US presidency via the most audacious identity theft in modern politics, as evidenced in her essentially preposterous performance in the debate with Donald Trump.
If Harris wins it will be a Harry Houdini moment of escapology, a politician escaping a lifetime’s ideological commitment and political values to campaign as somebody else entirely.
Except on abortion, where she’s making a strong and effective counter-proposal to Trump, Harris spent the debate both lying about Trump, just as he lied about her, and also ditching many of the policies and values that have defined her life and career.
Harris has been a strong advocate of gun control, including mandatory gun buybacks. But in the debate she declared: “Tim Walz (her vice-presidential running mate) and I are both gun owners. We’re not taking anybody’s guns away.”
She’s critical of Trump’s proposal for new tariffs, but as Trump pointed out, she and Biden kept all the tariffs he imposed during his first term and added some more. Are Trump tariffs bad, Biden/Harris tariffs good?
She’s been a super-keen green machine politician, net zero all the way, phase out fossil fuel, but quickly, and, until 2020, dead against fracking. Now she loves fracking.
Even more astonishing were her boasts: “I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking.” Similarly, she and Biden oversaw “the largest increase in domestic oil production in history” and “the US must reduce its dependence on foreign oil”. She also boasted the US now produced more gas than ever before.
All this is a bizarre turnaround, and surely equals Trump’s many policy flip-flops.
The official position of the Biden administration is to phase out fossil fuels, not produce record amounts of them. The only reason the Inflation Reduction Act had provision for three new offshore oil and gas leases is because Joe Manchin, the retiring conservative Democrat senator from West Virginia, refused to vote for the act and its attendant five-year plan otherwise.
The Biden administration fought Manchin’s initiative, but gave in because there was no other way to get the legislation passed. So Harris is boasting about championing provisions she strongly opposed.
That’s chutzpah.
Had the debate moderators had the slightest interest in consistency, they would have fact-checked Harris on this, or on the many straight-out lies she told.
She said Trump left office with the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression. That’s just untrue. The unemployment rate when Trump left office was 6 per cent. That’s nowhere near the highest level since the Great Depression.
Don’t get me wrong. Trump told loads of lies himself. He claimed, for example, that inflation under Biden was the worst in America’s history. That’s absolute nonsense. At its highest point under Biden, inflation was way below levels in the 1980s and the 1920s.
Harris in the past championed decriminalising illegal entry into the US. Now she styles herself a tough border enforcer. Previously, she favoured cutting defence spending. Now she pledges to the US having the strongest, “most lethal” military in the world. She once opposed private health insurance, now she’s all for it. There are countless other examples of Harris abandoning a solid left-wing past for what are almost notional centre-right positions.
To some extent, this is just the normal jigging and jagging of democratic politics, vastly exaggerated. To adapt Bismarck, politics is like a sausage. If you want to enjoy eating it, don’t look too closely at how it’s made.
However, the dynamics of the presidential debate, and the election generally, which is still desperately balanced and way too close to call, reveal deeper structural dynamics in US politics and society that have not been fully recognised.
For a start, Harris’s new positions indicate that on many points of policy and ideology, Trump has won the argument. Trump is probably the least intellectual of any modern US major party presidential candidate. Yet he has in several areas not only disrupted, but revolutionised the accepted wisdom on key policy positions.
Both sides of US politics now view China essentially the way Trump does, as America’s single most formidable and dangerous strategic competitor.
Harris had almost nothing to say about climate change, and certainly no mention at all of that nebulous security blanket, the rules-based international order, but she did want America “to win the competition with China”. Similarly, as outlined above, for the moment at least she’s embraced Trumpian energy policy. She’s newly tough on the border with Mexico. She doesn’t like Trump’s new tariffs but loves his old ones and wants to use tariffs and industry policy to repatriate manufacturing jobs to America.
Second, Harris is receiving lavish, in my view almost wholly unjustified, praise for her debate performance because her supporters feel she disconcerted and discomfited Trump.
Not for substance. Pay attention to the customarily savage dog that hasn’t barked. Harris can turn on a dime to embrace Trump-lite positions on illegal immigration, guns, defence, China, even Israel, and there’s no blowback from the left.
Of course, she plans big tax increases on corporations and the rich, which Trump certainly doesn’t favour. But just the statement that as president she would always ensure Israel has the means to defend itself would have been enough to earn Biden the epithet “Genocide Joe” and would be regarded as one step from fascist militarism from Trump.
But Harris gets a clear pass. This is partly because the left of the Democratic Party, and American society generally, doesn’t believe a word of Harris’s new centrism, and thinks if she becomes president she’ll govern as a committed progressive.
That’s the likely reaction of many working-class voters in Pennsylvania and other Midwestern battleground states. If you really want a pro-fracking, gun-toting, oil drilling, border-controlling president, is Kamala Harris your pick?
Harris has stolen some of Trump’s clothes, but she looks weird in them.
The lack of left-wing blowback to Harris’s sharp rightward tilt in the debate offers a clue to another element of America’s deep social and political polarisation. Both sides of US politics have convinced themselves that the other side is so inherently, quintessentially, at its very core, evil, that anything goes in defeating them.
When Trump first emerged, he did break numerous norms that hadn’t been broken before, especially in the way he lied and abused people. Democrats are now convinced Trump is uniquely evil in the history of America. In fact, Democrats demonised George W Bush and Ronald Reagan in similar fashion, though less intensely.
But Democrats and their media backers have got into such a moral panic over Trump that they now fully equal him in their own norm-breaking, such as through politicised legal prosecutions, politicised mis-use of intelligence agencies, rank unprofessionalism amid much media, and much more.
For the bulk of the American left, Harris telling brazen lies, and adopting positions at odds with everything she and they believe in, (which she’s likely to drop 10 minutes after election), is acceptable because it serves the higher purpose of defeating Trump.
What’s a white lie, or a phony policy, compared with stopping the greatest threat to democracy in American history, after all?
Trump and his supporters are just as bad and have their own ends-justify-means apologies for Trump’s lies and excesses. Their version of the syndrome has it that America is failing, enduring a uniquely dangerous moment, because of the politics-as-usual Washington swamp, led by left-wing Democrats.
That’s why both sides of US politics see the same debate in such radically different ways. For Trump supporters, there was just the usual bit of Trump linguistic imprecision and overstatement in a noble battle to save America. For Harris supporters, a fine leader may need to stoop to dissembling and verbal gymnastics to preserve democracy itself.
Both sides see themselves fighting a moral crusade of purpose that involves moral compromise of methods. In reality, the two sides of politics are routinely behaving worse than at any stage in more than half a century.
This also reflects the culture. Reality has become fluid, the culture plastic. Social media, with its toxic fantasies, is ubiquitous. No one believes in objective truth. There’s no cultural penalty for lying.
The big issue where Harris confronts Trump with strong disagreement is abortion. Harris told numerous lies about this issue during the debate and in her Democratic Convention conference speech. She claims Trump plans a national ban on abortion. That’s not true. Trump has been consistent in wanting the issue resolved, democratically through legislatures and referendums, at the state level. Harris claims Trump wants to limit the availability of IVF fertility treatments. Also not true. Trump has promised to have all IVF treatments paid for by the federal government, or by mandated insurance companies.
Harris and Biden, on the other hand, take the most liberal position regarding abortion law, believing there should be no legal restrictions at all. Many state Republican legislatures, following the overturning of the Roe v Wade ruling, and the subsequent Supreme Court decisions which further liberalised the law, are imposing, or trying to impose, abortion restrictions.
Conservatives have had a bitter experience over abortion politics since Roe v Wade was overturned in June 2022. Conservatives long argued that the intensely divisive abortion issue, in which both sides passionately and conscientiously believe they’re defending fundamental human rights, should not be decided by courts but by the democratic political process.
In 1973, when Roe was decided, the courts were more liberal on abortion than the society. Not now. A big majority of Americans, it seems, are substantially if not completely laissez-faire on abortion. This shatters a familiar conservative myth, that there is a vast silent majority of social conservatives in society who are manacled by government rulings and regulations, and if liberated to vote on an issue will generally vote conservative.
This is true on some issues, but absolutely wrong on others. It’s certainly wrong on abortion. A better social issue for conservatives politically was the Supreme Court ending race-based affirmative action. This resulted from a legal case brought by Asian students against discrimination in favour of African-American students. Like the Australian referendum vote against the voice, it wasn’t born of racial hostility but of a desire to affirm universal citizenship and diminish, if not abolish, the divisive civic role of race.
There could be two Supreme Court vacancies in the next presidential term, which provides a huge motive for conservatives to work for Trump’s election.
So who will win?
At time of writing the RealClearPolitics poll average has Harris fractionally leading Trump, 48.4 to 47.3. Tellingly, on that vote, RCP has Trump winning the presidency in the Electoral College, by the tight margin of 281 to 257 (270 Electoral College votes are needed for the presidency). Just before the debate, a New York Times/Sienna poll put Trump 1 per cent ahead. Just after the debate, Policymarket has the race at 50/50.
The Economist/YouGov and Pew polls also call a dead heat. A number of polls have Harris slightly ahead. The RCP average may understate Trump because it includes some polls before the Harris bubble deflated a bit.
Harris is seen as the debate winner, though watching it I thought it a low-performance functional draw or even that Trump might have won narrowly. It’s unlikely to change votes hugely. Biden’s disastrous debate performance only resulted in a very slight drop in his vote. It was all the Democrats demanding he stand down that hurt his numbers more.
Harris got a big bounce from Biden withdrawing and her becoming the candidate, but no bounce at all from the Democratic National Convention. She has rigidly avoided interviews and even in 17 minutes of soft ball tripe from CNN managed to look meandering and vacant. She certainly did better in the debate.
Conventional wisdom thinks Harris needs a 51 or 52 per cent poll vote to be safely assured of victory.C There’s a small rural bias in the Electoral College (resulting from small states having as many senators as large states) which favours Republicans, but this isn’t the main reason Democrats sometimes win more votes but lose the presidency. Rather, Democrats win by huge margins in California and New York, while Republicans win by smaller margins in Texas and Florida. It’s like a parliamentary system. A party can “waste” votes in safe states.
Only seven battleground states are in play – Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada. All other states are spoken for. The battleground states are almost all nearly dead even, with Harris having a small edge in Michigan and Wisconsin. RCP’s Electoral College model with Trump winning 281 to 257 has Harris winning Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada, but Trump winning all the other battleground states. If everything else stayed the same and he lost either Pennsylvania, North Carolina or Georgia, he’d lose the election.
It’s desperately close. This could even explain Trump’s bizarre “illegal immigrants are eating pet cats and dogs” moment in the debate. Trump succeeds when he gets people to vote who don’t normally vote. Such a bizarre video clip could go viral in the wildest reaches of boys’ only digital swamplands – and lead to a few thousand more Trump votes.
Trump has one big advantage. The polls understated his vote by 2 per cent in the last two elections. If that holds, Harris would have to be much further ahead in the polls than she is now to win.
But Harris has one big advantage. She has much more money than Trump. Democrats, like the teals in Australia at the last election, have so much corporate backing they can hire more people to implement the all-important ground game.
*************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Thursday, September 12, 2024
Everyone knows Trump, but after the debate Harris remains a mystery
When John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon faced off for a television debate in 1960, both candidates were new and fresh. Nixon blew a six-point lead with a poor performance and it took 16 years until candidates could agree to debate again.
For most incumbent presidents debates are a disaster. In 2024, with most people around the world feeling grumpy, it pays to be the challenger. Incumbency for every government, from Modi in India to Macron in France, is political arsenic.
Most Americans believe that their country is heading in the wrong direction. Kamala Harris will not win if Americans see her presidency as Joe Biden’s second term.
The Trump/Harris debate was an arm wrestle between two candidates with experience in the White House, but only Donald Trump came across as the outsider. His performance was predictable. It was a more disciplined version of his stock standard rally speech.
Harris outperformed expectations and addressed concerns she may not be up to the job. However, she spent most of the debate either defending Biden policies or attacking Trump. At this stage it won’t be enough.
Until now, polls have both candidates neck and neck. Democrats got a massive bounce out of Biden’s resignation, as the despair about Biden turned into hope with Harris. But the widely anticipated surge after the successful Democratic National Convention in Chicago never eventuated. Harris still remained a policy mystery. For four days everyone spoke about Harris, but she had less than an hour explaining herself and her policies to the electorate.
Harris has avoided tough media and adopted the small target approach of Biden in 2020. That won’t be enough. Biden was well known to most Americans who were uninterested in the daily Washington DC wash. Harris remains comparatively unknown.
It’s the reality that the Democrats need to win the popular vote by more than 2 per cent over the Republicans in order to win the electoral college that chooses the president. Harris hasn’t got that lead yet. She seems to flatline without a big enough margin.
While Trump lost the debate, nothing said or done during the nearly two hours of talk will shift votes between Harris and Trump. If you were voting for either candidate then your vote is unlikely to change.
Trump didn’t screw up and he was his authentic self. If he came out looking like he was souped up on tranquillisers then his voters would have thought he was a fraud. If he was condescending and snarly he would’ve burned off some crucial female voters.
From a presentation perspective, Trump needed to avoid being rude. He was reasonably coherent and effective. Harris needed to be calm and strong. Her personal attacks on Trump were targeted and well researched.
It remains the case that the most important voting demographic for Trump is white women. In 2016 and 2020, he received more of their votes than either Hillary Clinton or Biden. In the election he lost to Biden, too many white women gave up on him and his behaviour.
They are the demographic most attuned to cost-of-living pressures and national security. Trump’s strong words on the exit from Afghanistan and his closure of the Mexican border resonate with these voters. At the same time, they don’t like a bully and Trump was saved from himself by the mute button which the Harris campaign didn’t want.
Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer has reacted to the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
Similarly, an overly aggressive Harris would have turned off her soft vote supporters. It’s much harder for a woman to be aggressive, but Harris performed well in that environment.
This election, more than ever, is about voter turnout. Trump was correct to say he has won more votes than any other candidate for president, apart from Biden in 2020. I suspect Trump will lose few of those votes.
If they voted for him against Biden four years ago, nothing, until now, would cause them to change their vote to Harris. Trump 2.0 is the same as Trump 1.0, but today he is more desperate to win.
Was there anything said or done by the candidates in this presidential debate that will cause an undecided voter to get off the couch and go and stand for three hours waiting to vote in a queue, in the chilly conditions of a Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan autumn? No.
It’s more likely that this election will be decided on policies rather than personalities – and the personality vote is now locked in. For the voters who really matter, the issues discussed in the debate were often peripheral. According to the Pew Research Centre, the No.1 issue for American voters is the economy.
It was the first issue discussed and the debate was orderly and useful. Both candidates prosecuted their cases successfully. After that came abortion. It’s not in the top seven issues for voters.
The abortion vote is already locked in. If it is the deciding issue for a voter, they are already locked in to their candidate. People who have a strong view either way have already decided how they will vote. Similarly, the January 6 vote is locked in, as is the Trump is a criminal vote, the Trump rudeness vote and the Trump is a liar vote.
It took forever to get to health, education, foreign policy, violent crime and immigration.
With all of that, why is the race still too close to call? For too many voters, Harris is still a mystery. Voters want change and Harris has just 55 days to explain why she is different to Biden. We know she is very different to Trump but that’s not enough. She needs to distance herself from Biden and on only two issues she was effective with that – small business and housing.
Trump showed he is different to the Biden/Harris administration on immigration, taxes, tariffs, foreign relations with China, NATO and foreign adversaries, student loans and Ukraine.
On guns and fracking, Harris wants to be close to Trump. On health, Trump wants to be close to Harris. Welfare didn’t get a mention, which would have benefited Harris. Addressing the surge of fentanyl didn’t get much attention either and that would have helped Trump.
Everyone knows Trump and what he stands for. Harris is still too much of a mystery. This election is still too close to call.
***************************************************
Rurals, Young People, and Hispanics Revert Back Toward Trump after Harris Surge in July
After an initial surge of support for Kamala Harris after President Joe Biden exited the race in July, the polls have narrowed significantly.
Immediately upon announcing her candidacy seven weeks ago, Harris received a bump in support – particularly among key factions of the Democratic base that Biden had been steadily losing ground with for well over a year. Young people, independents, and minorities all appeared more interested in Harris than they were in Biden seven weeks ago, but that picture has shifted, with Harris suffering relatively large declines since early July.
The most striking decline for Harris has been among young people. Young voters had been steadily distancing themselves from Biden for well over a year by the time the president announced his retirement, and for a brief snapshot in time, Harris appeared to be activating at least a portion of young voters, namely young women.
That picture has shifted over the past seven weeks. A New York Times/Siena College poll from July shows Harris earning 59 percent of voters under 30 to former President Donald Trump’s 38 percent among the likely electorate, placing her nearly at the same level (60 percent) as Biden won four years ago.
However, youth enthusiasm has largely fizzled for Harris since the thrill of her “Brat” campaign has worn off. Economic reality has set in, and the latest Times poll from September places Harris at just 51 percent among voters under age 30. This represents an eight-point decline since she announced her candidacy and has nearly erased the gains she briefly held over Biden’s campaign.
Trump, meanwhile, has scrambled back up to 43 percent of the youth vote over the past seven weeks, a five-point gain since Harris became the nominee. Harris’ eight-point decline looks even worse when compared to the total share of the youth vote Biden won in 2020. According to CNN exit polls, Biden won young voters 60 percent to Trump’s 36 percent, meaning Harris is trailing Biden’s 2020 numbers by nine points, while Trump has gained seven points compared to 2020.
Harris’ brief “blip” in youth support right after Biden exited the race does not appear to be sustainable. Trump, however, has been polling around ten points above what he gained in 2020 with young people for over a year now. Democrats are on track to face the November election with a much-reduced pool of youth support compared to 2020, while Republicans have made incremental gains, despite an onslaught of attempts to portray Trump as a dictator. Among all other age groups, Harris’ numbers have stayed relatively stable since she entered the race with only marginal one or two points shifts.
While it isn’t as large of a decline as the numbers among young people, Hispanics have also reduced their support for Harris since she entered the race seven weeks ago, ousting Biden. According to the same Times poll looking at the likely electorate, 60 percent of Hispanics planned to support Harris shortly after she became the nominee, while 36 percent planned to support Trump.
The latest Times poll shows a five-point decline for Harris, with just 55 percent of Hispanics now intending to support her, while 41 percent plan to support Trump. This amounts to a five-point decline for Harris and a five-point gain for Trump over the past seven weeks.
Again, for reference compare Harris’ current standing in the polls to the share of the electorate Biden won in 2020, and the picture is even worse for Democrats. Biden won 65 percent of the Latino vote in 2020, while Trump earned 32 percent. As polls stand seven weeks after Harris announced her candidacy, she is on track to fall short of Biden’s 2020 numbers by ten points, while Trump is expected to gain nine points.
Where else is Harris in trouble? Harris may be suffering a decline in support among rural voters, after earning a small blip in July. Rural voters have increasingly skewed Republican, but just after Biden was ousted Harris was earning around 36 percent of the vote from rural areas to Trump’s 59 percent.
However, seven weeks later she is earning around 31 percent of the rural vote, while Trump has skyrocketed up to 65 percent of the vote. Compared to 2020, this is an eight-point gain for Trump in rural areas, with Trump winning 57 percent of the rural vote four years ago.
For Harris, this represents an eleven-point decline compared to the share of the rural vote (42 percent) Joe Biden earned four years ago. This isn’t that surprising. Biden attempted to portray himself as a simple blue-collar Democrat from Scranton, Pennsylvania, while Harris is a coastal elitist from deep-blue California who is not even attempting to resonate with middle America.
That said, just because Trump has regained footing among groups that were already on the way out the door for Democrats doesn’t mean Harris isn’t seeing an increase in support among certain demographics. City folks and Black voters have flocked to her side in larger numbers over the past seven weeks.
As of July, Harris was having difficulty attracting support from Black voters, but she appears to be gaining. She is up six points with Black voters, going from 72 percent of their vote in July to 78 percent as of early September. While this is a relatively large gain for Harris, she is still polling nine points below the 87 percent of the Black vote Biden won in 2020.
Trump, for his part, is polling at 14 percent of the Black vote in the latest Times poll, which would constitute a modest two-to-three-point gain compared to 2020. It isn’t much, but against a candidate that is being sold to the public as the “first Black female president”, it is worth noting she is doing slightly worse than Biden.
Then, there are city dwellers, another group that appears to be consolidating their support behind Harris. July’s poll had Harris earning a comfortable 59 percent of the city-folk vote, but that number has climbed to 63 percent. This represents a slight gain over the 60 percent of the city vote Biden earned in 2020, indicating Harris could beat Biden’s numbers among city dwellers.
In short, the longstanding demographic losses for Democrats among young voters and Hispanics which Americans for Limited Government and others have been covering for well over a year now appear to be “real” at least according to polls.
Young voters and Hispanics have been shifting away from Democrats over the past four years due to the Biden Administration’s mishandling of key issues like inflation and immigration, and they do not appear to be circling back just because Kamala Harris is heading the ticket now.
The urban/rural divide is likely to be even larger this election than it was in 2020, with Trump further consolidating support among rural Americans and Harris gaining over Biden’s numbers among urbanites. Black voters like Harris more than they liked Biden seven weeks ago as he teetered out of the race, but they still like her less than they liked the Biden of 2020.
*************************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
