#Because of Levi rising into third place in that Twitter poll

[mellonyheart]

New evidence of self aware Levi?!

[thisdaynews]

Why Warren’s Big Crowds Are a Big Deal

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/why-warrens-big-crowds-are-a-big-deal/

Why Warren’s Big Crowds Are a Big Deal

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

2020 Elections

The data gurus say her long selfie lines with supporters don’t mean anything. They’re wrong.

After Elizabeth Warren was said to draw a crowd of more than 20,000 people to New York City’s Washington Square Park last week, top political number crunchers were quick to scoff. CNN’s poll analyst Harry Enten vented on Twitter, “Are we really doing this thing on crowd sizes?” HuffPost polling editor Ariel Edwards-Levy did the same: “Good morning, crowd size still is not predictive of electoral results, thank you.” FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver said on MSNBC that “crowd sizes are one of the last things I’d look at” when assessing a candidate’s level of support.

Warren has a lot more than crowds going for her these days. She is having her best week of 2020 primary polling yet, seizing the top spot in Monmouth University’s New Hampshire poll on Tuesday and in theDes Moines Register/CNN Iowa poll this weekend. But the crowds did come first, and despite the scoffing, they weren’t irrelevant to her rise.

Story Continued Below

Unlike data gurus, political reporters tend to think that crowd sizes really do matter, and they often write about them in breathless tones. TheNew York Timesin particular has delved deep into what makes Warren’s big rallies so big. TheTimespodcast “The Daily” dissected the “Anatomy of a Warren Rally” from inside the Washington Square Park crowd, and marveled at how Warren’s followers lustily chanted “two cents” in support of a wealth tax, and how determined they were to wait in post-rally photo lines for a snapshot with the candidate. Two months earlier, theTimespublished a multimedia analysis of the complicated “selfie” line logistics (while quibbling that the photos are taken by a Warren staffer, and therefore, are not selfies.)

So who’s right in thisMoneyball-like debate—the reporters who want to assess a candidate and her supporters in person, or the analytics gurus who scoff at the effort? Do crowd sizes matter?

Um, of course they do. No, they’re not instruments that predict the political future. But so what? Nothing is. As Warren is the latest to prove, crowds are a highly effective tool for earning legitimacy and breaking out of the pack. And, just maybe, they matter even more in the social media era, because big crowds can help campaigns build a get-out-the-vote volunteer army.

Our beloved political data nerds aren’t totally wrong, but they are overstating their case. As FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich wrote earlier this month, “Polls are much more accurate at forecasting elections than crowd-size estimates, which don’t tell us all that much.” But polls are not exactly clairvoyant four months before Election Day. And even if crowds aren’t predictive of who’s going to win the nomination, that doesn’t make them meaningless. It’s clear they mean something.

How could Warren be where she is today—first place in Iowa and New Hampshire, second place nationally—without her crowds? She began her campaign in the low single-digits, awkwardly apologizing for trying to prove her Native American ancestry with a DNA test, and suffering from possibly sexist speculation that she lacked “likability.” As her crowds grew into the thousands, and as her selfie lines became tests of endurance, she was presenting visual evidence that many people liked her, and then some. In the view of political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, big crowds are a way to measure a candidate’s charisma. “In fact, it may be the only way to quantify charisma,” Bitecofer says. “And charisma matters.”

Still, Bernie Sanders’ big crowds weren’t enough for him to win in 2016, nor were Howard Dean’s in 2004. The question for Warren and her crowds in 2020 is whether she can turn enough of her rallygoers into effective campaign workers who can get out the vote, in the places where she needs the most help. Not every rallygoer is positioned to do that. Warren may continue to have the biggest crowds. The more important question is: Compared to her progressive insurgent predecessors, will she havebettercrowds?

In a tight race, a strong get-out-the-vote operation is essential, and that requires a field operation that is intimately familiar with the local terrain. In their definitive guidebookGet Out the Vote,political science professors Donald P. Green and Alan S. Gerber wrote: “The more personal the interaction between a campaign and potential voter, the more it raises a person’s chances of voting. Door-to-door canvassing by friends and neighbors is the gold standard mobilization tactic.” Warren’s selfie lines are a digital innovation on how to recruit your supporters to engage in peer-to-peer politicking, through social media sharing of the coveted snapshots.

However, not all volunteers are of equal value. Not only does political science research indicate that friends and neighbors make better canvassers than out-of-towners, but also that canvassing is more effective when volunteers are demographically similar to the targeted voters. And even sophisticated, data-savvy campaigns can have trouble strategically deploying volunteers.

In the 2004 Iowa caucuses, crowd quality beat crowd quantity. Howard Dean had long been generating the biggest crowds that year, and then tried to win in the final weeks by parachuting in his biggest fans from out of state to canvas. Dean’s orange-hat brigade inadvertently advertised to Iowans that his surrogates weren’t their friends and neighbors.

Meanwhile, Dean’s rival John Kerry, during a period when his polls were ebbing, quietly built a team of “captains” who actually knew their fellow Iowans, which helped to propel him to a come-from-behind victory. Political scientist Thomas Schaller commented at the time that the Kerry win showed that while “there is much to be said for building support through a bottom-up, follower-based movement, there remains a premium on having a top-down, leadership-driven apparatus to harness that support.”

This cycle, Warren is trying to be the leader in both quantityandquality. Her recent big crowds—10,000-plus in Seattle, St. Paul, and New York City (the Warren campaign’s 20,000 estimate for Washington Square Park was not confirmed by city officials)—have congregated in deep-blue cities that are not part of the February voting contests. But Warren followed her flex in Washington Square Park with a healthy 2,000-person audience at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.

Where we haven’t heard reports of a strong Warren field operation is in South Carolina—the fourth February state, and the one with a Democratic electorate demographically distinct from the other three. According to entrance and exit poll data from 2016, Iowa and New Hampshire have Democratic electorates that are almost uniformly white, at least half-college educated and slightly more than two-thirds liberal. Nevada’s is not nearly as white, but is almost half-college educated and is 70 percent liberal. South Carolina is majority-black. Sixty percent of its voters lack a college degree and almost half identify as moderate or conservative.

Warren’s rise in the polls has been powered by support from stoutly liberal college-educated whites. Her two-point lead in theDes Moines Register/CNN poll is largely thanks to the 48 percent plurality she got from “very liberal” Iowans. So when Warren draws a big crowd at an Iowa university, she is getting access to potential volunteers who are, in all likelihood, demographically and politically aligned with much of the state’s Democratic electorate.

A college crowd in South Carolina is a different story. The last time Warren was in South Carolina, which was last month, she drew 925 people to the University of South Carolina Aiken, packing a gymnasium to capacity and prompting Warren to give an additional speech to the overflow crowd. But, according to the South Carolina newspaperThe State, the audience was “majority white and many traveled from outside Aiken.” When Warren addressed a black church in Columbia the following day,TheWashington Postreported the event was “sparsely attended.” This weekend, Warren will try again, returning to South Carolina for a town hall at the historically black Clinton College.

To win the nomination, Warren almost certainly needs to make inroads with African-Americans and non-college voters, in South Carolina and elsewhere, where bigger and bigger crowds may not her best weapon. As FiveThirtyEight’s Rakich recently highlighted, a 2018 Pew poll found that those who said they had attended a political rally in the last five years tend to be ideologically liberal and college-educated.

That may help explain why boisterous crowds didn’t help Sanders in 2016 move beyond his natural base of youthful progressives. By the later stages of the campaign, his repetitive rallies may even have created a counterproductive image of insularity. Barack Obama’s enormous crowds in the 2008 primary, of course, were an unmitigated success story. But as an African-American candidate, it was easier for him to fuse a coalition of white, liberal college-educated rallygoers with black voters. If Bernie’s “27 dollars” call-and-response wasn’t enough to grow a diverse coalition, Warren may not be able to either with her “two cents.”

In the early stages of a campaign, neither polls nor crowds are predictive of the final outcome. That doesn’t make them meaningless. Warren’s crowds don’t make her a sure winner, but neither do her new leads in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. And if you need to break out of a crowded field, it sure helps to have a crowd.

Read More

[goarticletec-blog]

Paris riots show failure of Macron carbon tax with public

New Post has been published on https://www.articletec.com/paris-riots-show-failure-of-macron-carbon-tax-with-public/

Paris riots show failure of Macron carbon tax with public

The turmoil sparked by French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to boost gas taxes is just the latest example of an emerging political truism.

While economists hail them as the best, most effective way to limit greenhouse gas emissions, carbon taxes are proving a tough sell for politicians who have to work and win elections in the real world.

The climbdown by Mr. Macron’s government — delaying for at least six months planned gas tax hikes in the face of the worst Paris street riots in 50 years — is just the latest retreat for green-oriented governments in North America, Asia and Europe. The long-term benefits of lower carbon emissions tend to get swamped in the polls by the immediate pain of higher costs at the gas station and on the home heating bills.

President Trump weighed in on Twitter on Tuesday evening, saying the Paris demonstrators and the Macron government have come around to his way of thinking on the dubious wisdom of higher fuel taxes as a way to fight climate change.

The global climate deal signed in Paris — and rejected last year by Mr. Trump — “is fatally flawed because it raises the price of energy for responsible countries while whitewashing some of the worst polluters …,” Mr. Trump tweeted. “American taxpayers — and American workers — shouldn’t pay to clean up others countries’ pollution.”

The debate presents a classic clash between theoretical elegance and political pragmatism.

Led by Paul Romer, who won the 2018 Nobel Economics Prize for his work on integrating climate change into macroeconomic analysis, top economists argue that the argument is straightforward: The quickest, most efficient way to reduce carbon production is to tax it and force the market to find cheaper, cleaner alternatives.

“Tax the usage of fuels that directly or indirectly release greenhouse gases,” said Mr. Romer, a former chief economist with the World Bank. “People will see that there’s a big profit to be made from figuring out ways to supply energy where they can do it without incurring the tax.

“The problem is not knowing what to do,” Mr. Romer recently told a Canadian radio station. “The problem is getting a consensus to act.”

Critics are everywhere, even in places as unexpected as leading environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, which has objected to carbon tax proposals that return some of the proceeds to taxpayers. It argues that the money should be earmarked for clean energy projects.

Politicians face the largest stumbling blocks in avoiding the fears of everyday citizens that new taxes will crush them, policymakers say. Higher gas and home heating taxes also tend to fall on rural and working-class voters who rely on cars more than their urban compatriots. That argument factored heavily in France’s “yellow vest” protests against Mr. Macron’s proposed diesel tax hike, which exploded into France’s largest riots in decades.

“It’s pressure that’s been building for some time, not just in France but abroad,” said H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the free-market Heartland Institute.

He echoed Mr. Trump’s suggestion that the Macron government is proving to be out of touch with the French people.

“Nothing reveals the disconnect between ordinary voters and an aloof political class more than carbon taxation,” the conservative Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial this week.

Some carbon tax skeptics are so convinced of the idea’s political toxicity that they are pre-emptively moving to strike it down.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican, and Rep. David B. McKinley, West Virginia Republican, last summer proposed a nonbinding resolution to condemn all carbon taxes. It passed by a 229-180 vote.

“I think the case is very clear by anybody who’s looked objectively at what a carbon tax would do to the economy,” Mr. Scalise argued on the floor of the House at the time. “It would be devastating to our manufacturing base, it would kill jobs, and I think most devastating, it would rise in increased cost for families all across this country.”

The world reacts

Once seen by governments as a possible way to spur the development of cleaner energy sources while filling their coffers, carbon taxes are increasingly the source of short-term social combustion.

Last week, inspired by the French “yellow vests,” demonstrators in Belgium took to the street in a similar movement.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to impose a federal carbon tax on Canadian provinces has also recently been greeted by significant political headwinds, and questions of whether Ottawa had the authority to levy such a tax in the first place.

“Governments around the world, including Canada’s, sold us on the idea the magic beans of carbon taxes would save our planet from climate change, while we made trillions of dollars doing it,” Toronto Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein wrote this week, “except it hasn’t worked out that way.”

Perhaps the most striking cautionary tale came in Australia, where the Labor government introduced a carbon pricing scheme in July 2012. Resistance to the idea was so strong that it was repealed just over two years later.

In a subsequent analysis, the Center for Public Impact wrote: “The government that introduced the policy failed to sell it, while its critics portrayed it as a burden that would hurt businesses and cost households. So even though public support — along with concerns for climate change — increased over time and the scheme was succeeding in reducing emissions, it failed to get the support it needed.”

Critics say the popular skepticism is amply justified.

“Gasoline taxes are one of the most regressive taxes a government can impose, because everyone buying gas pays the same price regardless of income,” Merrill Matthews, resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation, said Tuesday, noting the chaos and policy confusion in France.

Experiment in Washington

In the U.S., the political viability of carbon taxes has been put to the test — and found wanting — repeatedly in Washington state.

State voters there last month considered yet another ballot question proposing to place a carbon fee on fossil fuel emissions, the third such effort proposed for the state.

The proposal triggered the largest ballot measure spending spree in Washington state’s history and included high-profile endorsements from Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, who donated $1 million to the campaign supporting the tax.

Supporters hoped to institute the first state-level carbon fee, which would have taken effect in 2020. All revenue generated was to be overseen by governor-appointed board as well as the state’s utilities.

But opponents also mobilized against the idea.

CNBC reported that the Western States Petroleum Association solicited $31.2 million from oil companies and business groups against the idea — a record amount for a Washington state ballot initiative, according to state records.

In the end, voters in the politically liberal state rejected the idea 57 percent to 43 percent.

In 2016, Washington state voters rejected a similar ballot initiative that proposed a carbon tax alongside a cut in the state sales tax in an effort to ease the financial bite on citizens. That ballot measure lost 59 percent to 41 percent.

Despite the historical record, green activists say they have not given up on the carbon tax idea. Democratic gains in Congress and in statehouses across the country have sparked renewed talk about the idea, according to Inside Climate News.

“At least seven state governments are poised at the brink of putting a price on climate-warming carbon emissions within the next year,” according to the publication. “Some are considering new carbon taxes or fees. Others are making plans to join regional carbon markets.”

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

Source link

[investmart007]

WASHINGTON | AP-NORC Poll: Americans not enthused with Trump trade policy

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/8ZTqHc

WASHINGTON | AP-NORC Poll: Americans not enthused with Trump trade policy

WASHINGTON — Fewer than half of Americans expect President Donald Trump’s tariffs to do much to help the U.S. economy, but their widespread unpopularity hasn’t led most Republicans to stray from supporting the president’s trade policy as the 2018 midterm elections approach.

Majorities of Americans also doubt the recently announced taxes on imports will increase jobs or wages at home, according to a poll released Friday by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The survey found that 35 percent of Americans think the tariffs will leave them worse off financially, while only 19 percent expect improvement. Forty percent expect them to help the economy, while 44 percent expect them to hurt and 16 percent expect them to make no difference.

More specifically, about 4 in 10 think the policy will lead to an increase in jobs. Only about 3 in 10 expect wage gains.

Moreover, 72 percent of Americans say the import levies will cause prices for everyday goods to climb. The agreement about tariffs setting off inflation is bipartisan, with Republicans nearly as likely to express concern about rising prices as Democrats.

“Tariffs don’t help anybody,” said Raymond Brown, 65, a retired truck driver from Rio Grande, New Jersey. “It seems like the tariffs are imposed and the corporations just pass that tax onto the consumer.”

A registered Republican, Brown worries that he would need to pay more for a new car because of the steel and aluminum tariffs the Trump administration has added to the cost of importing the metals.

He said he fears auto costs could rise even more if tariffs are placed on electronic equipment made abroad that is installed in cars assembled in the United States.

Yet despite concern about his trade policies, the economy is a relative source of strength for Trump. While only 38 percent of Americans approve of his handling of the presidency, 51 percent approve of his stewardship of the U.S. economy, according to the poll.

The president has benefited from a rising stock market and low 3.9 percent unemployment rate, gains that reflect, in large part, an economic expansion that began during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Trump’s signature economic achievement is the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts that will take effect over the next decade. While tax cuts provided the economy with a jolt of stimulus, they have garnered lukewarm support from Americans. Forty-five percent of Americans approve of the president’s handling of taxes, while 54 percent disapprove.

Michael Schulz, 66, a retired engineer in Alabama, said he has received job offers because of the tight labor market and companies’ need for experienced workers. A Trump voter in 2016, Schulz said the president is “doing a pretty fair job.” However, he added that he hasn’t seen any boost so far from the tax cuts.

“Maybe when it comes to tax time next year,” he said. “It appears to have benefited the business sector.”

Tariffs — Trump’s major economic focus in recent months — could prove to be a risk for the president among the broader public.

Overall, about 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of how the president is handling trade negotiations with other countries. It’s something of a rebuke to Trump, a real estate tycoon and celebrity who sold himself to voters as a master negotiator.

Some of the frustration with Trump comes from his eagerness to “carpet-bomb” other countries with tariffs without having a clearly stated strategy for helping workers at home, said Jordan Thompson, 29, who works in information security in Washington state.

“I’m not a great fan of how he interacts with other countries, how he interacts with citizens, how he tries to manipulate everything so that it’s what works for him,” said Thompson, who said he didn’t vote for Trump.

The Trump administration has portrayed the tariffs as a cornerstone of its economic policy, saying these taxes will help extract more favorable terms of trade with China, Canada, Mexico, the European Union and elsewhere.

“Tariffs are the greatest!” the president declared on Twitter last month.

“Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs,” he continued. “It’s as simple as that — and everybody’s talking! Remember, we are the ‘piggy bank’ that’s being robbed. All will be Great!”

Trump enjoys a solid base of support among Republicans on his trade negotiation tactics, with 75 percent approving of moves that include a broad showdown with China that threatens tariffs on almost every import from that nation. Only 36 percent of independents and 10 percent of Democrats approve.

Republicans have for decades generally supported free trade and lower tariffs, and the poll found they know there are trade-offs to the president’s approach. About three-quarters of Republicans said the tariffs will increase the price of consumer goods, roughly equal to the percentage of Democrats who said the same thing.

Still, the poll also found that two-thirds of Republicans specifically favor Trump’s new tariffs. Maxine Sailors, 80, said the public needs to be patient with the president’s strategy.

“He’s a businessman playing hardball and we’ll see how the other countries react,” Sailors said. “Maybe, after some tit and tat, the U.S. and the other countries will sit down and talk. But right now, it’s a wait and see.”

Sailors, a retiree from Austin, Texas, who previously ran a hamburger stand with her husband, added, “They want everything to be solved right now, like a one-hour TV show. Life isn’t like that. Life takes time.”

The AP-NORC poll of 1,055 adults was conducted Aug. 16-20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

By JOSH BOAK and EMILY SWANSON,  Associated Press

[mikemortgage]

AP-NORC Poll: Americans harbour doubts about Trump’s tariffs

WASHINGTON — Fewer than half of Americans expect President Donald Trump’s tariffs to do much to help the U.S. economy, but their widespread unpopularity hasn’t led most Republicans to stray from supporting the president’s trade policy as the 2018 midterm elections approach.

Majorities of Americans also doubt the recently announced taxes on imports will increase jobs or wages at home, according to a poll released Friday by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The survey found that 35 per cent of Americans think the tariffs will leave them worse off financially, while only 19 per cent expect improvement. Forty per cent expect them to help the economy, while 44 per cent expect them to hurt and 16 per cent expect them to make no difference.

More specifically, about 4 in 10 think the policy will lead to an increase in jobs. Only about 3 in 10 expect wage gains.

Moreover, 72 per cent of Americans say the import levies will cause prices for everyday goods to climb. The agreement about tariffs setting off inflation is bipartisan, with Republicans nearly as likely to express concern about rising prices as Democrats.

“Tariffs don’t help anybody,” said Raymond Brown, 65, a retired truck driver from New Jersey. “It seems like the tariffs are imposed and the corporations just pass that tax onto the consumer.”

A registered Republican, Brown worries that he would need to pay more for a new car because of the steel and aluminum tariffs the Trump administration has added to the cost of importing the metals. He said he fears auto costs could rise even more if tariffs are placed on electronic equipment made abroad that is installed in cars assembled in the United States.

Yet despite concern about his trade policies, the economy is a relative source of strength for Trump. While only 38 per cent of Americans approve of his handling of the presidency, 51 per cent approve of his stewardship of the U.S. economy, according to the poll.

The president has benefited from a rising stock market and low 3.9 per cent unemployment rate, gains that reflect, in large part, an economic expansion that began during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Trump’s signature economic achievement is the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts that will take effect over the next decade. While tax cuts provided the economy with a jolt of stimulus, they have garnered lukewarm support from Americans. Forty-five per cent of Americans approve of the president’s handling of taxes, while 54 per cent disapprove.

Michael Schulz, 66, a retired engineer in Alabama, said he has received job offers because of the tight labour market and companies’ need for experienced workers. A Trump voter in 2016, Schulz said the president is “doing a pretty fair job.” However, he added that he hasn’t seen any boost so far from the tax cuts.

“Maybe when it comes to tax time next year,” he said. “It appears to have benefited the business sector.”

Tariffs — Trump’s major economic focus in recent months — could prove to be a risk for the president among the broader public.

Overall, about 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of how the president is handling trade negotiations with other countries. It’s something of a rebuke to Trump, a real estate tycoon and celebrity who sold himself to voters as a master negotiator.

Some of the frustration with Trump comes from his eagerness to “carpet-bomb” other countries with tariffs without having a clearly stated strategy for helping workers at home, said Jordan Thompson, 29, who works in information security in Washington state.

“I’m not a great fan of how he interacts with other countries, how he interacts with citizens, how he tries to manipulate everything so that it’s what works for him,” said Thompson, who said he didn’t vote for Trump.

The Trump administration has portrayed the tariffs as a cornerstone of its economic policy, saying these taxes will help extract more favourable terms of trade with China, Canada, Mexico, the European Union and elsewhere.

“Tariffs are the greatest!” the president declared on Twitter last month.

“Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs,” he continued. “It’s as simple as that — and everybody’s talking! Remember, we are the ‘piggy bank’ that’s being robbed. All will be Great!”

Trump enjoys a solid base of support among Republicans on his trade negotiation tactics, with 75 per cent approving of moves that include a broad showdown with China that threatens tariffs on almost every import from that nation. Only 36 per cent of independents and 10 per cent of Democrats approve.

Republicans have for decades generally supported free trade and lower tariffs, and the poll found they know there are trade-offs to the president’s approach. About three-quarters of Republicans said the tariffs will increase the price of consumer goods, roughly equal to the percentage of Democrats who said the same thing.

Still, the poll also found that two-thirds of Republicans specifically favour Trump’s new tariffs. Maxine Sailors, 80, said the public needs to be patient with the president’s strategy.

“He’s a businessman playing hardball and we’ll see how the other countries react,” Sailors said. “Maybe, after some tit and tat, the U.S. and the other countries will sit down and talk. But right now, it’s a wait and see.”

Sailors, a retired Texan who previously ran a hamburger stand with her husband, added, “They want everything to be solved right now, like a one-hour TV show. Life isn’t like that. Life takes time.”

——

The AP-NORC poll of 1,055 adults was conducted Aug. 16-20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

——

Online:

AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research: http://www.apnorc.org

from Financial Post https://ift.tt/2LpSp9T via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

[investmart007]

WASHINGTON | AP-NORC Poll: Americans harbor doubts about Trump's tariffs

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/bQElRm

WASHINGTON | AP-NORC Poll: Americans harbor doubts about Trump's tariffs

WASHINGTON — Fewer than half of Americans expect President Donald Trump’s tariffs to do much to help the U.S. economy, but their widespread unpopularity hasn’t led most Republicans to stray from supporting the president’s trade policy as the 2018 midterm elections approach.

Majorities of Americans also doubt the recently announced taxes on imports will increase jobs or wages at home, according to a poll released Friday by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The survey found that 35 percent of Americans think the tariffs will leave them worse off financially, while only 19 percent expect improvement. Forty percent expect them to help the economy, while 44 percent expect them to hurt and 16 percent expect them to make no difference.

More specifically, about 4 in 10 think the policy will lead to an increase in jobs. Only about 3 in 10 expect wage gains.

Moreover, 72 percent of Americans say the import levies will cause prices for everyday goods to climb. The agreement about tariffs setting off inflation is bipartisan, with Republicans nearly as likely to express concern about rising prices as Democrats.

“Tariffs don’t help anybody,” said Raymond Brown, 65, a retired truck driver from New Jersey. “It seems like the tariffs are imposed and the corporations just pass that tax onto the consumer.”

A registered Republican, Brown worries that he would need to pay more for a new car because of the steel and aluminum tariffs the Trump administration has added to the cost of importing the metals. He said he fears auto costs could rise even more if tariffs are placed on electronic equipment made abroad that is installed in cars assembled in the United States.

Yet despite concern about his trade policies, the economy is a relative source of strength for Trump. While only 38 percent of Americans approve of his handling of the presidency, 51 percent approve of his stewardship of the U.S. economy, according to the poll.

The president has benefited from a rising stock market and low 3.9 percent unemployment rate, gains that reflect, in large part, an economic expansion that began during Barack Obama’s presidency.

Trump’s signature economic achievement is the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts that will take effect over the next decade. While tax cuts provided the economy with a jolt of stimulus, they have garnered lukewarm support from Americans. Forty-five percent of Americans approve of the president’s handling of taxes, while 54 percent disapprove.

Michael Schulz, 66, a retired engineer in Alabama, said he has received job offers because of the tight labor market and companies’ need for experienced workers. A Trump voter in 2016, Schulz said the president is “doing a pretty fair job.” However, he added that he hasn’t seen any boost so far from the tax cuts.

“Maybe when it comes to tax time next year,” he said. “It appears to have benefited the business sector.”

Tariffs — Trump’s major economic focus in recent months — could prove to be a risk for the president among the broader public.

Overall, about 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of how the president is handling trade negotiations with other countries. It’s something of a rebuke to Trump, a real estate tycoon and celebrity who sold himself to voters as a master negotiator.

Some of the frustration with Trump comes from his eagerness to “carpet-bomb” other countries with tariffs without having a clearly stated strategy for helping workers at home, said Jordan Thompson, 29, who works in information security in Washington state.

“I’m not a great fan of how he interacts with other countries, how he interacts with citizens, how he tries to manipulate everything so that it’s what works for him,” said Thompson, who said he didn’t vote for Trump.

The Trump administration has portrayed the tariffs as a cornerstone of its economic policy, saying these taxes will help extract more favorable terms of trade with China, Canada, Mexico, the European Union and elsewhere.

“Tariffs are the greatest!” the president declared on Twitter last month.

“Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs,” he continued. “It’s as simple as that — and everybody’s talking! Remember, we are the ‘piggy bank’ that’s being robbed. All will be Great!”

Trump enjoys a solid base of support among Republicans on his trade negotiation tactics, with 75 percent approving of moves that include a broad showdown with China that threatens tariffs on almost every import from that nation. Only 36 percent of independents and 10 percent of Democrats approve.

Republicans have for decades generally supported free trade and lower tariffs, and the poll found they know there are trade-offs to the president’s approach. About three-quarters of Republicans said the tariffs will increase the price of consumer goods, roughly equal to the percentage of Democrats who said the same thing.

Still, the poll also found that two-thirds of Republicans specifically favor Trump’s new tariffs. Maxine Sailors, 80, said the public needs to be patient with the president’s strategy.

“He’s a businessman playing hardball and we’ll see how the other countries react,” Sailors said. “Maybe, after some tit and tat, the U.S. and the other countries will sit down and talk. But right now, it’s a wait and see.”

Sailors, a retired Texan who previously ran a hamburger stand with her husband, added, “They want everything to be solved right now, like a one-hour TV show. Life isn’t like that. Life takes time.”

The AP-NORC poll of 1,055 adults was conducted Aug. 16-20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

By JOSH BOAK and EMILY SWANSON, Associated Press