#the main difference behaviorally between republicans and democrats is that they are divided to a fault. this can be bad at times. | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mednerds · 3 years ago

Photo

Vaccination in America Might Have Only One Tragic Path Forward

COVID-19 vaccination rates have fallen off a cliff. Will it take a deadly summer surge to change things?

America’s vaccination rates have fallen off a cliff, and nothing seems to help.

With every passing day, the pace of vaccinations only seems to drag a little closer to the gutter. As of July 12, it had fallen off by half again. The Great Vaccine Decline now appears to be an ugly force of nature. If it continues, further horrors are all but guaranteed to follow. Sadly, those horrors may be the only thing that stops it.

The problem, it’s been said, is that we live in two Americas, riven by both ideology and immunology: In blue America, vaccination rates are standing up just fine; in red America, they’re slouchy and exposed. Indeed, the latest vaccine numbers show that 17 states have now provided at least one dose to more than 60 percent of their population—and every single one of them voted for Biden in the last election. Another 16 states are struggling to reach a rate of 50 percent; all but one of those went for Donald Trump.

But there’s another, better way to think about what’s happening here: If the distribution of vaccines keeps slowing down, it’s not because America is divided but because we’re running out of people who think vaccines will save their lives.

It certainly hasn’t helped the vaccination drive that Fox News and other right-wing outlets are sowing fear about the safety of the COVID-19 shots, and about the efforts to distribute them. Still, the recent wave of right-wing propaganda hasn’t clearly made the problem worse. Going by the numbers that we have so far, Tucker Carlson’s summer monologues aren’t really changing many minds. In fact, enthusiasm for the vaccine has been growing, overall, in both Americas alike. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has been carefully following vaccine attitudes and behaviors since December, almost half of Democrats were saying that they planned to get immunized as soon as possible (if they hadn’t done so already) at the end of 2020; by June, that rate had nearly doubled, to 88 percent. Republicans started from a lower baseline, but they’ve also gotten more accepting: Just like the Democrats, the proportion saying that they wanted the vaccine almost doubled over time, from 28 percent to 54 percent. Party rhetoric notwithstanding, the overall partisan gap in vaccine enthusiasm has been holding steady, at a little more than 30 points, through all of 2021.

Rather than diverging politics, people’s willingness to get vaccinated might best be understood as a function of how they perceive risk. Although there are more noble reasons to be immunized than self-protection, surveys show that they’re not the ones most often cited. Kaiser finds that among those who have gone in for their shots, more than half say the “main reason” was to reduce their personal risk of illness. Meanwhile, among the unvaccinated, one-half assert that COVID-19 case rates are now so low that further vaccinations are unnecessary.

Risk perception is just one of many factors that determine vaccine uptake. You could be terrified of getting COVID-19, for example, and desperate to be immunized, but still find yourself unable to reach a distribution site. A person’s sense of danger could also modulate these other factors, at least for some people: The time and effort that it takes to get vaccinated may matter less to those who worry more.

Risk certainly seems to help explain the other major gap in vaccination rates across the U.S. population, between the gray America of retirees and the green one of Millennials. Some 85 percent of seniors have now been vaccinated, versus 55 percent of young adults—a gaping, 30-point spread that matches up, almost perfectly, with the spread between Democrats (86 percent) and Republicans (52 percent). If these two Americas of old and young are making different choices about vaccines, it can’t be just because they’re watching different cable talk shows, or because they vary in their trust in institutions, or because they disagree about the legal merits of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. No, old people are much more likely than young people to get their COVID-19 shots because old people are much more likely to die from the disease, and they know it. The same pattern holds for uptake of the flu shot every year: Seniors, who are at the greatest risk of influenza, are much more likely to be immunized. (The age gap for the flu shot, like the one for COVID-19 vaccination, is roughly 30 points.)

Since the very start of the pandemic, Republicans and Democrats have differed widely in their sense of the virus’s dangers. From March 2020, the Pew Research Center has been asking American adults whether the coronavirus outbreak represents a “major threat to the health of the U.S. population as a whole”—and from March 2020, Democrats have almost always been about twice as likely to say yes. In May of last year, 82 percent of Democrats agreed that it was a major threat, compared with 43 percent of Republicans. Politicians were working hard, from March 2020, to shape those very perceptions among their constituents, and it worked: The partisan worry gap was in place long before any vaccines were ever tested, and long before the right-wing media started talking up the risks of deadly side effects. It hasn’t budged for months and months and months.

Differences in risk perception are not as clearly linked to other important (and somewhat narrower) vaccination gaps, such the one between Black and white Americans. But looking at the numbers overall, you can see some hints of how these factors might have played into the timing of America’s Great Vaccine Decline. It’s clear enough that vaccinating people drives down the spread of COVID-19: Over a period of about six months, the number of new cases recorded every day in the U.S. has dropped by 95 percent, while the number of Americans who have been fully vaccinated increased a hundredfold. But the effect might also go the other way, with a decline in COVID-19 cases driving down the rate of vaccination. On March 11, Biden announced a huge expansion of the vaccine rollout, and over the next month, the number of doses being given out per day increased by 25 percent. But case rates were increasing too, by about the same amount. Then, around April 12, both trend lines hit a ceiling: From that point on, fewer Americans were getting sick, and fewer were getting vaccinated. By the end of June, both rates had fallen off by more than 80 percent.

It’s not surprising that demand for vaccination would tend to fall off over time, given that the most enthusiastic people line up first. Once they’ve gotten all their doses, the pace can only slow. But the coincidental timing of the drop in case rates hints that people’s sense of risk could be a factor too. Imagine that you’re not so sure about getting the vaccine yourself, and then you hear that the pandemic is receding. Maybe that makes you somewhat less inclined to take the day off work and find a mobile clinic. Maybe it’s a reason to wait a little longer.

“One of the main problems that vaccination programs face is that they’re effective,” Noel Brewer, a psychologist who studies health behaviors at the University of North Carolina, told me. “And their effectiveness undermines people’s interest in vaccination.”

If our sense of danger—or lack thereof—is behind the Great Vaccine Decline, then maybe there’s a fix. Should we try to make the holdouts more afraid?

Scared Straight programs for vaccines have been tried before, and they haven’t done much good. Studies tend to find that pointing to the dangers of disease will certainly freak some people out—but that feeling is short-lived and doesn’t seem to change behavior. “They found small increases in perceived risk but no increases in vaccine uptake,” Brewer said. “On balance, it’s not going to work.”

It’s also possible that some people who are disinclined to get their COVID-19 shots might not be wrong, per se, in their assessment of their own, relative risk of dying from the disease, even if they’re neglecting the bigger picture. Young people really are hundreds of times less vulnerable than seniors, and Republicans are, on average, a lot more realistic than Democrats about a person’s chances of developing severe disease once they’ve been infected by the coronavirus. (At the same time, they’re much less realistic about COVID-19’s harms in aggregate.) In other words, efforts to scare more young people or Republicans into getting vaccinated could end up encouraging them to be less informed about the facts, at least narrowly construed, instead of more so.

Brewer warns that any form of intervention aimed at people’s “thoughts and feelings” about vaccines isn’t likely to succeed. We know that those thoughts and feelings help determine people’s actions, but that doesn’t mean they can be changed by PSAs or other public-health campaigns. It’s better to focus on behavior, he told me. “We have to help folks take action; we have to help them take time off work; we have to help lower the barriers that are currently preventing them from acting on their good intentions.” It’s important for people’s own doctors to be involved in the process, encouraging and delivering vaccines, Brewer said. Vaccine requirements might make a difference. Full FDA approval for the vaccines could help, too—though how much is debated.

Of course, helping folks take action is just the sort of thing that the White House has been pushing, and it hasn’t done much good. Brewer acknowledged that the effects have been pretty small so far, but he said that doesn’t mean they’re unimportant. Changing people’s health behaviors tends to be slow and difficult work. “When looking at other vaccines, an increase of 2 percent year over year is a big deal,” he told me. Even tiny bumps like these save lives.

But as the Delta variant rips through Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, and the rest of the United States, we may see the vaccination numbers start to rise in tandem. If a drop in cases dampened people’s urge to get vaccinated, then perhaps a surge in cases will do the opposite. If ICUs keep filling up, and COVID-19 deaths increase again, then a growing sense of danger may envelop some among the vaccine-hesitant, nudging them toward action. It’s a pattern that we’ve seen before: In 2019, when measles struck parts of the Pacific Northwest, local rates of measles vaccination tripled in response. The economist Emily Oster has looked at pertussis outbreaks, county by county, going back to 1991, and found that child vaccination rates increased in the years that followed.

The two lines plotted on the chart above, for new COVID-19 cases and vaccine doses, have started to diverge. It will be a somber consolation if they come back together in the weeks ahead. A national month of action did little to arrest the Great Vaccine Decline. Now a national month of pain and suffering is all we have.

By Daniel Engber (The Atlantic). Image: Getty; The Atlantic.

#science #medicine #medblr #academia #health #public health #public safety #get your vaccine #stop the spread #stop misinformation #spread awareness

132 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 6 years ago

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

When President Trump entered office, it wasn’t clear if he would consolidate control of the Republican Party — or even his own administration. We used to write a lot about various power centers in his administration, for example. But the president gradually forced out people who didn’t agree with him. Congressional Republicans buck the White House on occasion, but that’s more the exception that proves the rule. And special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe ending without the president being directly implicated, according to the attorney general, both removes any doubt that Trump will be running for president in 2020 and gives Republicans skeptical of Trump one less argument to make against him, thereby strengthening his influence within the GOP.

So describing Republicans as divided between pro-Trump and anti-Trump forces no longer makes much sense — the GOP is overwhelmingly a pro-Trump party. That said, just like Democrats, the broader Republican Party does have some distinct blocs and factions worth understanding. The parties don’t have the same kinds of differences. Democrats have deep divides over policy. In contrast, Republicans, at both the state and federal levels, are largely unified around an agenda of cutting spending for programs such as Medicaid that are targeted at low-income people, defending Americans’ ability to own and purchase guns, limiting abortion, and reducing regulations and taxes on businesses.

Instead, the most important dividing line in the Republican Party right now is probably this: How much should the GOP adhere to Trumpism?

We don’t have an official definition of Trumpism, but we’re describing it here in terms of four areas where Trump is somewhat distinct from previous Republican presidents: (i) Anti-institutionalism (his attacks on the Justice Department and the media, for example); (ii) Economic protectionism (his wariness about international trade agreements); (iii) Foreign policy (his hostility to NATO); and (iv) immigration and race (the border wall, the travel ban).

Vrtually all Republicans in elected office are generally aligned with the president and will support him in seeking a second term. But many Republican officials don’t fully (or really at all) embrace those four facets of Trumpism. That creates tensions between the president and people in his party that play out regularly in Washington.1 I’d put modern Republicans into five main groups (ordered roughly from most to least aligned with Trumpism):

The Trumpists

Often join Trump on immigration policy and in attacking institutions; largely avoid criticizing him publicly on foreign policy and trade even if they don’t fully embrace his views on those issues; strongly defend him in almost every instance.

Prominent examples: Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Fox News, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, Sen. David Perdue of Georgia.

This is not the biggest wing, but it may be the most important. People in this bloc forcefully take on some of the president’s biggest critics (Jordan and Meadows leading the attacks against Trump-fixer-turned-antagonist Michael Cohen at a recent congressional hearing, for example.) They will often defend Trump’s behavior when other Republicans won’t (Perdue suggested Trump did not use the phrase “shithole countries” to describe nations like Haiti in a meeting last year, even as other attendees confirmed that he did.)

During the Mueller investigation, this bloc was particularly helpful to Trump. They not only cast the investigation that Mueller was conducting as unfair and biased against Trump, but conducted a counter-investigation, aggressively questioning the Department of Justice officials who had launched the probe about Trump and his campaign during 2016.

The Pro-Trumpers

Support the president as a default, but hold views similar to George W. Bush or Paul Ryan on policy issues and not truly aligned with most of the four aspects of Trumpism; occasionally disagree with Trump publicly, particularly on foreign policy, but usually with careful language.

Prominent examples: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Charles and David Koch, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

I would put most elected Republicans on Capitol Hill and in governors’ mansions in this group. They do agree with some aspects of Trumpism — in particular, Trump tends to use more inflammatory rhetoric on immigration issues, but his policy stances aren’t all that far from GOP orthodoxy. But these figures aren’t attacking the media as “fake news” or particularly enthused about say, removing U.S. troops from Syria. They usually avoid criticizing Trump in public. And if they do, that criticism is usually expressed in very polite terms — and often not followed up by much action.

Trump critics often cast this group as “enabling” Trump or even handing full control of the GOP over to him. Many in this bloc do, in fact, have high Trump scores.2 And while Republicans in this bloc didn’t attack Mueller’s investigation as the Trumpists did, they largely took positions that helped the president amid the probe. McConnell never pushed for a vote on a measure that would have made it harder for Trump to fire the special counsel, and this week blocked a provision pushed by Democrats that would require Attorney General William Barr to publicly release Mueller’s full report.

But as the political scientist Matt Glassman has described, the relationship between these Republicans and Trump is best understood not as Trump forcing ideas down this bloc’s throats. Instead, Glassman argues that McConnell and other congressional Republicans are pushing a fairly traditional Republican agenda, like tax cuts, and Trump largely goes along with it. The unwritten contract between this bloc and Trump seems to be that they will not break with Trump in public (even when he is, say, bashing the late and revered-among-Republicans John McCain) as long as he does not stray too far from establishment Republican policies. Their mantra can be summed up by one word: “judges.” (However erratic and unpredictable Trump may be in personality and on some issues, he is appointing conservative judges who will be on the bench long after he leaves the White House.)

Trump-Skeptical Conservatives

Generally aligned with Trump, but tend to break with him in somewhat noisy ways and generally by casting the president as insufficiently conservative.

Prominent examples: Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

This is a fairly small bloc among elected Republicans. But in a closely divided Senate, Lee and Paul in particular really matter. Their opposition in 2017 to the party’s push to roll back parts of Obamacare — arguing the provisions written by congressional Republican leaders kept too much of the law in place — was a significant factor in the GOP never actually passing anything. Lee and Paul were two of only five Senate Republicans who earlier this month backed both the legislation to end the U.S. involvement in the Yemen civil war and the legislation to stop Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to build the border wall. Paul had the second-lowest Trump Score among Senate Republicans in 2017-2018, Lee the fourth-lowest. In the House, Amash backed the president’s position just 54 percent of the time in 2017-2018, putting him behind all but one Republican and also behind some House Democrats.

In all, this group, driven more by doctrine and ideology than the other blocs, is the clearest remainder in the GOP of what the tea party movement espoused.

Trump-Skeptical Moderates

Generally aligned with Trump on policy, but wary of Trumpism; often criticize the president sharply and publicly, particularly his anti-institutionalism and his policies and remarks on racial issues.

Prominent examples: Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Rep. Will Hurd of Texas, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah

Think of this group as the “very concerned” Republicans. They often verbally tsk-tsk about Trump, but then, say, vote for Brett Kavanaugh, irritating Democrats who want to see them marry their words with actions. This group is most important because they are likely to be the most forceful critics if, for example, Trump seems too chummy with Vladimir Putin. That occasional forcefulness makes this group different from the generally Pro-Trump bloc I described. And this strong criticism matters — Trump sometimes reverses himself in the face of it.

You might object to the term “moderate” here — Romney for example, is quite conservative on most policy issues. But being hostile to the media and at times to minorities is an important part of Trump’s political approach and increasingly that of the Republican Party’s. Being openly resistant to that drift in the party, like Romney, is a point of distinction between him and Republicans in the first two blocs.

Anti-Trumpers

Never really embraced Trump as the leader of the GOP and seem open to supporting a primary challenger to him.

Prominent examples: Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, conservative activist Bill Kristol, former Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.

This is the smallest bloc and it includes very few elected officials — illustrating how Trump has largely won over a Republican Party that was resistant to him basically up until the day he was elected president. Hogan, who just won reelection in 2018 in a fairly blue state, is hinting that he is considering a run against Trump. But he would be a long shot — and one reason is that he would have almost no support among Republican Party powerbrokers.

As long as Trump is in power, I don’t expect these blocs to feud much. They might differ on tactics or strategy in the run-up to the 2020 campaign. But if they want to win in 2020, all the blocs but the final, most anti-Trump one are probably better off aligning with one another and with Trump.

But if Trump loses reelection in 2020, these blocs are a useful guide to a post-Trump GOP. The old divides between the GOP establishment and the tea party or moderates and conservatives are now outdated ways of looking at the GOP. The former insurgents in the GOP now run the party — Trump is the president and one-time House Freedom Caucus member Mick Mulvaney is the president’s chief of staff. Many of the party’s remaining moderates lost in 2018 to Democratic opponents.

Instead, the new dividing lines in the party are likely to be about how various Republicans dealt with Trump and Trumpism. If Trump loses in 2020, I would expect some Republicans, particularly the Trumpists, to argue that many in the party were insufficiently loyal to Trump and Trumpism, dividing the GOP and making it harder for the president to win a second term. Other Republicans, particularly the Anti-Trumpers and the Trump-Skeptical Moderates, are likely to argue Republicans lost the presidency because the party didn’t try hard enough to either get a less polarizing 2020 nominee or push Trump to be less polarizing.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Perry Bacon Jr.

4 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Who Were The Republicans In The Civil War

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-were-the-republicans-in-the-civil-war/

Who Were The Republicans In The Civil War

Gop Overthrown During Great Depression

What if Civil War broke out between Republicans and Democrats?

The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperityuntil the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the Great Depression. Although the party did very well in large cities and among ethnic Catholics in presidential elections of 19201924, it was unable to hold those gains in 1928. By 1932, the citiesfor the first time everhad become Democratic strongholds.

Hoover was by nature an activist and attempted to do what he could to alleviate the widespread suffering caused by the Depression, but his strict adherence to what he believed were Republican principles precluded him from establishing relief directly from the federal government. The Depression cost Hoover the presidency with the 1932 landslide election of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the presidency of Republican Dwight Eisenhower 19531961. The Democrats made major gains in the 1930 midterm elections, giving them congressional parity for the first time since Wilson’s presidency.

Election Of Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln was born into relative poverty in Kentucky in 1809. His father worked a small farm. In his youth, Lincoln held down a variety of jobs before moving to Illinois and becoming a lawyer.

Lincoln sarted to get involved in local politics. Lincolns political views came to the fore after the Kansas Nebraska Act where he spoke out against the spread of slavery.

1860 was the presidential election year. In the spring the two main parties, the Democrats and the Republicans chose their candidates.

Abraham Lincoln . The Republicans held their convention in Chicago. Lincoln was chosen with overwhelming support.

Stephen Douglas . The Democratic Party was split. Northern Democrats wished for further compromise over slavery. Douglas was chosen as their candidate.

John Breckinridge . The Southern Democrats wanted no compromise on slavery. They wished to see slavery guaranteed and were trying to take over the party. They left the Democrat Convention in Baltimore and selected their own candidate John Breckinridge.

John Bell . The Constitutional Union Party was trying to prevent the country dividing over the issue of slavery.

The election campaign of 1860 was unusual. Lincoln only campaigned in the North and Breckinridge in the South. Stephen Douglas exhausted himself by campaigning in all the states.

The result was that Lincoln became President. He won all 17 states in the North but none in the South. The country was now more divided than ever.

Opinionheres What Getting Rid Of Mississippis Confederate Flag Means And Doesnt

In the summer of 1864, for example, the war was going poorly, and Republicans feared that a public sick of defeat would toss Lincoln out of office. Then Gen. William T. Sherman won a resounding victory at Atlanta in September. Lincolnâs landslide re-election in 1864 seemed to many at the time and since then to be the result of that military success.

But by analyzing House elections in 1864, Kalmoe uncovered a different story. In the 1860s, congressional contests were held over the course of the entire year, rather than on the same day as the presidential contest. If Republicans were in trouble before September, House GOP candidates should have been crushed by Democratic challengers. But instead, Kalmoe found, Republican vote share changed little over time. Lincoln was on his way to win before Atlanta. Republican partisans supported the president even though the war was going poorly, as they did when the war was going well.

In the Civil War era, partisanship had a strong effect on how people interpreted good or bad news.

Republican refusal to abandon Trump seems ominous. Trumpâs disastrous response to a national health crisis has led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. If his voters arenât moved by that, how can we hold government accountable to the people at all? Partisanship seems to be a recipe for denial, dysfunction and death.

Read Also: Did Republicans Cut Funding For Benghazi

Related Stories

4 Ways Trump and the GOP Still Wield Tremendous Power to Do Serious and Lasting Damage to America

Nothing Will Really Change Until America Reckons with Race

People Don't Want to Come to Trump's America: The 'Trump Slump' in Travel Is Costing America Billions

via AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed

#IFTTT #Feedly #Nothingman uses feedly

1 note · View note

kathleenseiber · 5 years ago

Text

How close you live to a city shapes your politics

How close people live to bigger cities shapes their politics, according to a new study.

The researchers, using Gallup survey data between 2003-18, found evidence that the urban-rural political divide—more noticeable and decisive in recent elections—is rooted in geography and not merely differences in the type of people living in these places.

“…we tend to overlook how the social environment—outside of race, gender, and income—plays a role in our partisan identity.”

How close people live to a major metropolitan area, defined as cities of at least 100,000, and their town’s population density play a significant role in shaping their political beliefs and partisan affiliation.

“Urban-rural differences in partisan political loyalty is as familiar in the United States as they are in other countries,” says coauthor Andrew J. Reeves, associate professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis.

“The general consensus has been that the origins of this divide lie within the personal characteristics of the people who live in rural or urban communities. However, our research found that the explanation was not that simple.”

(Credit: Wash. U. in St. Louis)

Geography and partisanship

In their research analysis, Reeves and Bryant J. Moy, a PhD candidate in the political science department, along with two University of Maryland coauthors, found that geography is related to substantial differences in partisanship even after accounting for a host of individual traits like age, race, gender, education, and religious adherence.

For instance, holding all other individual characteristics constant, an individual’s probability of identifying as a strong Democrat drops by 12 percentage points if they live in a far rural area. Likewise, their analysis suggests that a person living in a densely packed community is about 11 points more likely to identify as a strong Democrat compared with that same person living in a sparsely populated area.

“On the one hand, our findings should not surprise anyone. Life experiences shape our perceptions of the world. On the other hand, we tend to overlook how the social environment—outside of race, gender, and income—plays a role in our partisan identity,” Moy says.

“And that is the main takeaway from our research. The environment around us—the distance we live away from a metropolitan area and population density—shapes what we think about the political world and the partisan labels we adopt.”

(Credit: Wash. U. in St. Louis)

In terms of distance from a large metropolitan city, their analysis showed that, on average, Republicans lived 20 miles from a city, while independents lived 17 miles away and Democrats lived 12 miles away.

The physical urban-rural gap was smaller among racial and ethnic groups and those who have higher education and higher income. Among college degree holders, Republicans lived 17 miles from the city while Democrats lived 10 miles from the city. Hispanic Republicans lived nine miles from the city while Hispanic Democrats lived seven miles from the city. Although the gap was smaller among these subgroups, it was still significant enough to be decisive in a closely contested race.

Urban-rural divide in politics

Small towns have always been conservative-leaning. People living in rural areas tend to have traditional values and be resistant to new ideas, Reeves says.

“In rural, less populated areas, residents are more likely to know one another and talk with their neighbors. Those interpersonal relationships are highly influential and can create a social pressure to conform,” he says.

“There also is a lot of resentment on the part of rural residents toward urban communities. There is a common perception that cities receive more than their fair share of resources and look down on rural communities. The media helps enforce these beliefs with news coverage that predominantly focuses on big cities and the interests of urbanites.”

In contrast, large, heavily populated cities have traditionally been more open to liberal ideas and more accommodating toward unconventional behaviors and beliefs. City dwellers have a greater opportunity to interact with diverse people, which fosters tolerance. They also have the ability to be anonymous, which encourages respect for people’s privacy.

According to Reeves, one might come to the conclusion that people choose to live in urban or rural communities based on their values and political beliefs, but recent research suggests that a small share of movers consider political factors directly in their decision-making process.

“There is a striking and significant association between geography of residence and party identification,” Reeves says. “In both urban and rural settings, geography and population density seem to exert a socializing impact on partisan identification while perhaps also serving as a draw for movers seeking a fitting and compatible destination.”

These findings have implications in the 2020 election and beyond, Reeves says.

“As we have long known, Democratic voters tend to pack themselves into cities, which is inefficient in terms of winning seats or electoral college votes,” he says. “Look at Missouri, for example. St. Louis, Kansas City, and Columbia are blue and then the rest of the state is red.

“By virtue of how we elect our members of Congress and even our president, Democrats are at a disadvantage, and it might only get worse based on the type of campaigning we see going in the primaries.

“Many of the Democratic candidates are leaning further to the left. This is not going to win over the rural voters who are more resistant to progressive ideas. The Democratic party is going to be at an increased electoral disadvantage if they decide they want to be the party of the urban progressive.”

The paper will appear in Political Behavior.

Source: Washington University in St. Louis

The post How close you live to a city shapes your politics appeared first on Futurity.

How close you live to a city shapes your politics published first on https://triviaqaweb.weebly.com/

0 notes

angrycollectordaze-me-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Assignment代写：Characteristics of American political parties

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- Characteristics of American political parties，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了美国的政党特征。美国政党发展于美国社会历史背景下，运作于美国政治体系中，因而具有与美国社会历史与政治体系相一致的独特性。美国政党产生后，由于受经济私有制、联邦政体以及美国资产阶级的多种思想文化的影响，使得美国政党逐步形成了与美国国情相适应的独特特征。

American political parties are born and developed in the social and historical background of the United States and operate in the political system of the United States. This paper mainly USES the analytical method of combining theory and demonstration to explore the characteristics of American political parties from the aspects of party pattern, party discipline, party members, party functions, party-mass relations, party-government relations, inter-party relations and party values. The characteristics of American political parties can be concluded from the analysis: multi-party coexistence, two-party pattern; Loose identification of party members, rapid change; Loose party discipline; Members of highly voluntary political party organizations; The main function of a political party is to run for office; The relation between the party and the masses takes the election as the link; Relatively independent and separate party-government relations; Relations between parties that compete, oppose and are not equal; Pragmatic party value orientation. However, Chinese political parties should treat the characteristics of American political parties dialectically rather than blindly copy and accept them completely.

In the United States, although many politicians such as before the founding of Washington, Jefferson and Madison and John Adams, the opposition party politics, the claims will be party excluded from the bourgeois political life in the United States, but after the founding of the United States, due to the restriction of the bourgeois system of private ownership is a basic, inevitably produced different asset class interests conflicts of interest and political differences, also makes the interests of the bourgeoisie within different factions. With the development of American politics, these factions evolved into modern political parties in the United States in the late 18th century. After the creation of modern political parties in the United States, due to the private ownership economy, the federal government, separation of powers, partition system, the two-party system, local autonomy tradition, the mature civil society, the integration of multi-ethnic immigration and American bourgeoisie of the so-called "freedom, democracy, equality," the influence of a variety of ideological culture, makes the United States parties gradually formed a unique characteristics corresponding to the national conditions. This paper will focus on analyzing the unique characteristics of American political parties.

In the political life of American political parties, there are many political parties, such as republican party, Democratic Party, populist party, progressive party, social labor party, American socialist party, liberal soil party, green party, temperance party, tea party and so on. However, the status and functions of the above parties in American political life are not the same, but there are obvious differences. Among republicans and Democrats is the main political parties in the political parties in the United States, the dominant political parties in the United States life, play the main function of the party, this mainly displays in: the two-party system in the United States in political life, republicans and Democrats came to power in turn, long-term firmly grasp and control the administrative heads of parliamentary seats, etc. For example, among the 32 presidents from 1853 to 2010, republicans held 20 and Democrats held 12. In the 110th congress, republicans and Democrats hold 49 seats in the 100-seat senate, and 201 and 232 seats in the 435-seat house. In the 111th congress, republicans and Democrats hold 43 and 57 seats in the 100-seat senate, and 178 and 256 seats in the 435-seat house of representatives. While the small parties other than the republican party and the Democratic Party play an important political role and play an important political function in the political life of American political parties. Mixing functions in two main political parties, have strong impact to them, forcing their policy can't go to extremes to the middle, however, these parties are just some of the party's political life, after all, the mainstream of smaller parties, not only few, small size, and strength, the strength is very weak, cannot form a peer in the fight against the republican and democratic Chambers power, so, their political parties in the United States in the life in a secondary position, play a minor role, played a very limited function of the party.

Identification of U.S. party members is lax. Freedom in general, party members to join the party, such as a citizen to identified as a party member, its application is very simple, almost do not need the formalities to join the party, just in campaign registration show his party intention, claimed that once he belongs to which party, and vote for the party candidate, can be identified with the party membership. In an election literacy quiz in Atlanta, the electoral authority responded to the question "how do I sign up for a political party?

American membership is changing fast. Generally speaking, if an American citizen wants to change his membership status from one party member to another party member, he shall not go through any formalities of party transfer, as long as he is registered as another party and votes for the other party at the time of election registration. If someone is now a republican, but in the next election registration as long as he registered as a democrat and voted for the Democratic Party, then his membership will immediately become a democrat from a republican identity; Still have kind of situation is: when a citizen, in a campaign, beginning may claim, registered as a republican or democrat, has the republican or Democratic Party membership temporarily, but before a formal vote, but he changed his mind, to register as democratic or republican party member, or did not register again but in the actual votes to the democratic or republican, this also is regarded as the civic party membership change, that is, from the republican or democratic identity change rapidly as Democrats or republicans identity. As William bora, a former us senator, once said: "a man who believes in every policy advocated by the Democrats, who believes in free trade, who believes in unconditional membership in the league of nations, who believes in state rights, will immediately become a republican if he supports the republican primary."

Firstly, party discipline in the United States is loose, which is reflected in the following aspects. Firstly, when voting is carried out in the government, the voting behavior of party members in the government is not strictly controlled by their own party. Second, when the candidates, they vote is highly free and can be either all the votes cast for their party candidate, can be selectively vote, such as in the governor's race, he may vote for the republican candidate, but in the state legislature or the parliamentary elections in some places, and he could instead voted for the democratic candidate, and vice versa, no interference; Three is the party platform without fixed basic platform, no unified party constitution and rules, there is no centralized and unified national organization, strong, no unified organization principles and the strict management regulations, as professor Cao Shaolian said, American political parties are "irrelevant party", "if if no party discipline". Therefore, party members should not abide by their own party discipline, nor should there be rewards or punishments for party discipline. Moreover, party members do not need to pay any party fees in the first place, do not have to work for the party, and rarely participate in discussions and activities organized by political parties.

Second, America's political parties are loosely organised. The United States is a federal country, in which power is divided at all levels of government, from the central to the local. States and counties have a high degree of local autonomy, and the national government has no administrative power over the state governments or the state governments over the county governments. It is on the basis of such decentralized administrative districts that the United States has set up various levels of electoral districts, and the two parties have established their own party organizations at all levels on the basis of various types of electoral districts. As electoral districts at all levels conduct elections independently, party organizations at all levels have to work independently, which leads to the formation of an organizational system of independent management of the two parties. American scholars point out: "why have our political parties been so fragmented? The main reason is that the constitution of our federal system determines our political system, which in turn determines the structure of government. Political parties are a prime example of this circular relationship. They are often organized around electing and holding public office. Because our federal system is based on the national - state - local system for elections and the establishment of officials, and our political parties are organized in the same system. "The bipartisan organizations are the product of America's unique political system. As long as the established principles of state sovereignty, federalism, local custom, legislative autonomy, regional autonomy, and decentralization are generally maintained, it will be difficult to establish strong, highly centralized party organizations in the United States.

Federalism in the United States establishes elections and offices on the basis of national -- state -- local -- grassroots constituencies. Therefore, American political parties also establish four levels of organizational structures on the same basis: the party's national congress and the national committee; State party conventions and state committees; Local party congresses and local committees; The party's primary constituency congress and constituency committee. From the above four levels of organizational structure, the form of American political party organization shows the "pyramid" structure. But essentially the party organization is inverted pyramid structure, like a multi-layer cake of each layer can be coming into its own as a political scientist, said: "although the party organization is a composed of party committees at all levels' pyramid ', but this does not mean that the pyramid is lower several level by the all levels of command and control", "national organization of political parties' floating 'on the state and local political quicksand. This is because in reality, the party is not a centralized management system, but the layers of decentralized management system, the relationship of between the party organizations at all levels is very loose, no subordinate relationship between the superior and the subordinate to each other or the relationship between the leadership and the leadership, there is no a top-down power chains, but each have their own independent space, has the responsibility and authority of the belongs to own, entirely within the confines of their functions and powers is coming into its own, more fragmented, not controlled by the party organization at the next higher level of intervention, the party organization at the next higher level in fact also have no right to direct orders to the next level party organizations. Even national party committee, but only by assigning the party's activities and can send delegates to the national congress, the state, local and district party organizations at the grass-roots level to exert certain influence, not the state, local and district party organizations at the grass-roots level direct order, not, local involvement and intervention of the state, district party organizations at the grass-roots level of daily affairs, can't and have no right to exempt from state and local, grassroots constituency party organization to select the position of party officials and party members.

Based on the above understanding, it can be said that there is almost no national political party in the United States, but only a coalition of state and local political parties, and a loose alliance between state party organizations and local organizations at all levels. As some American scholars said, "the national political parties in our country are only a loose alliance of the political parties in the autonomous states in organization. In 1841, there were 26 state party systems; now there are 50 state party systems. "The national political parties in the United States are the loose aggregation of state parties, and the state parties are an unfixed combination of individuals, groups and local organizations"; "America actually has 50 independent republicans and 50 independent Democrats"; "It's not so much a one-party system as a 50-state system."

Before the 1970 s, the United States election party organization has a strong organization and control function, and party organizations are often described as a "party machines", whose members are basically some full-time staff member of the party, but the reform of the political party in the 1970 s not only weakened the party organization "party machine" image, but also make the citizen of the United States is generally accepted that attend the party organizations to strengthen their communication with others and communication, can provide for them to participate in public life and public communication platform, can be in the future for them in politics, get some government post to create a condition, Therefore, American citizens are more and more willing to participate in political party organizations, and their volunteer activities are more and more frequent. Therefore, more and more part-time volunteers are employed in political party organizations. For example, scholar li luqu pointed out that the leaders and staff of grassroots party organizations in the United States are mostly temporary volunteers. Surveys also show that most local party organizations in the United States are made up of volunteers, including their chairmen and committees. For example, in 1995, the republican organization in Florida included several full-time staff and a group of part-time volunteers, and the democratic organization in Florida included four volunteers. Zhou shu, an academic, said that American political parties can operate successfully without a large number of full-time staff mainly because they attract many party activists who volunteer for them. A five-member delegation led by wang yicheng, director of the institute of political science at the Chinese academy of social sciences, visited the republican headquarters in talbot county, Maryland. The chairman of the executive committee introduced himself by saying that he was the boss of his own company and it was his duty to work for the party. He spends two to three hours a week doing party work, 30 hours a week during the election, and the rest of the time flying around and doing business in his private company.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文提供北美作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。

0 notes

anti-aggressionleague-blog · 6 years ago

Text

The White Genocide Hysteria and Fears of Demographic Changes Debunked

Sources: Bush's America: Roach Motel, Institute for Family Studies, Pew Research Center, 2010 Census, Pew Research Hispanic Trends, Childtrends.org, World Data on Fertility Rates, Immigration Act of 1924, Eugenic Laws Restricting Immigration, What is the Third Position?

In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner. One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population. - Ann Coulter, Bush's America: Roach Motel (2007)

Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people and they're changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don't like.From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically in some ways the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and in some cases, legal immigration that, of course, progressives love. - Laura Ingraham on The ANGLE

The left says we have a moral obligation to admit the world's poor. Even if it makes our own country more like Tijuana is now, which is to say poorer and dirtier and more divided. - Tucker Carlson

The new canard that both illegal and legal immigration from predominately non-white countries, particularly those in Central America, is genocide against White Americans is becoming more commonplace on the right. Even mainstream conservatives like Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham have adopted the talking points of the alt-right, formerly known as the third position. Opposition to illegal immigration is understandable given that it has criminal justice implications (e.g. apprehending human, drug trafficking, and social security fraud) and is theoretically nationality and race neutral (e.g. illegal aliens from Poland must also be deported). However, opposition to legal immigration from certain countries is historically rooted in much more malicious intentions. Tucker Carlson's grievances about an influx of Hispanics (mestizos) into a small Pennsylvania town and legal immigrants and refugees from developing countries making the U.S. poorer (and dirtier), which is both historically and economically illiterate for reasons I'll discuss later, highlights shifting conservative attitudes towards legal immigration. Theoretically, the conservative position would be neutral towards Hispanics (mestizos) moving into a town as long as they legally came to the U.S. and contribute to society. The Trump era has flipped this narrative on its head and made it less about work ethic and personal responsibility and more about origin. Some mainstream Trump supporters are starting to echo the biological determinism of the alt-right/third position to make sweeping assumptions about the behaviors of immigrant groups. It is thought that immigrants from Central America (mestizos) and the Caribbean (black and creole) are somehow biologically or culturally prone to vote for big government and welfare dependence, so Trump and some of his supporters want immigrants from countries like Norway, which, ironically, is more liberal and socialistic than the U.S. Given how liberal the Scandinavian countries are compared to the U.S. (e.g. much higher tax rates and more welfare spending not to mention rabid feminism), immigrants from there would likely vote for democrats or even the Green Party, yet I have never heard any third positionists or conservatives argue that Nordics are prone to vote for big government socialism. In fact, the whole of Europe is kind of a counter example to their bizarre belief that whites have an affinity for small government republicanism. That's not true outside of a handful of southern states and even then its only in rhetoric since most deep red states like Louisiana and Mississippi rely heavily on entitlement programs and federal aid. States like Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Minnesota have a much higher percentage of white people than the national average and are also some of the most liberal states in the union. Of course, the same could be said for predominately white states that are also very conservative like Wyoming, North Dakota, Iowa, and Idaho, which only further illustrates that political affiliation isn't some inherit racial trait.

The most obvious fallacy in this line of reasoning is that it conflates aggregate population with percentage of population. Although the percentage of white Americans in the U.S.population shrunk from 90% to 62% since 1965(when the national origins quota system was abolished), the total population of white Americans grew by nearly 40 million from 161,750,000 in 1965 to 200 million in 2015, hardly indicative of genocide. Declining white birth rates is also not evidence of white genocide. Birth rates are declining for all ethnic and racial groups so equally absurd claims could be made about black genocide, Asian genocide, and Hispanic genocide. UN Convention 1021 defines genocide as (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The Saudi carpet bombing and Blockade of Yemen could arguably be considered an act of genocide; the forced removal of traditional societies from their native habits, such as the various pygmy tribes from their forests homes by corrupt African governments at the behest of conservation NGOs, could also be considered an act of genocide, but declining birth rates in and of themselves is not genocide. Declining birth rates could be attributed to numerous causes such as wider availability of contraceptives, women delaying child bearing to pursue higher education, and the rising cost of living and growing student debt. None of these things are deliberately imposed on white people or anyone by their government. No one is forced to use contraceptives, no one is forced to go to college and take on student debt, and no one is forced to live in urban areas where housing and amenities are more expensive. While the average fertility rate for the U.S. (1.76 births per woman) is below replacement level (2.2 births per woman) and has declined significantly in the past decade from 2.08 births in 2007, the phenomenon isn't exclusive to white Americans. Over the last decade, the fertility rate for black women has fallen almost 10% from 2.15 to 1.9 births. The Hispanic fertility rate has fallen the most, dropping 19% from about three births per woman (2.85) a decade ago to 2.1 in 2017. The racial group with the lowest fertility rate also isn't white Americans but American Indians with a fertility rate of 1.62 births per woman (compared to 1.82 births for whites) and just 43 births per 1,000 (compared to 58 births per 1,000 for whites). So while the Hispanic fertility rate is significantly higher than the national average, it is also declining faster than the national average and even if it wasn't it still wouldn't be evidence of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy western civilization.

Fortunately, mainstream conservatives lamenting demographic changes have not gone completely batshit and blamed it on a global Jewish conspiracy, but the myth that minority women pump out babies non-stop continues to fuel the narrative that there is an ongoing scheme by 'liberal elites' or 'globalists' to slight white people and to some extent the common stereotype of the welfare queen. There are many benign reasons why minority groups might have higher fertility rates than white Americans. One explanation is that minority groups like Hispanics have a larger portion of young people than white Americans. The median age for non-Hispanic whites is 42.3 years old, while the median age for Hispanics (of any race) is significantly younger at 27.6 years old. Black Americans have a slightly older median age of 32.9 years and Asian/Pacific Islanders are even older at 35.9 years. Minority groups, especially Hispanics also have a larger portion of women in prime child bearing years compared to non-Hispanic white Americans. A full 25% of Hispanic women are between the ages of 20 and 34 compared to only 19% of non-Hispanic white women who are between the same ages. Differences in educational attainment might also explain some of the disparities in fertility rates since non-Hispanic white and Asian women attend college more frequently than Hispanic and black women and thus delay having children for at least four to six years.

The legal immigration of non-whites into the U.S. is also not white genocide. Historically, immigrants have come to the U.S. from poorer, mostly agrarian and often war torn or violent countries in search of better livelihoods. This was true of Irish immigrants who came here after the infamous potato famine and it was also true of Italians and Sicilians who also came to the U.S. in waves from peasant countries at the turn of the century and to a certain extent poles, Slavs and other Eastern Europeans. So it would not be much of a leap to assume that legal immigrants coming from poorer, mostly agrarian and often war torn or violent countries in Latin America and Asia are coming to the U.S. for reasons very similar to those that motivated third wave southern and eastern European immigrants to cross the Atlantic. Legal immigration was also opposed back then by the Eugenics movement for reasons similar to those articulated by their modern predecessors in the alt-right and Trump movement. The supposed intellectual inferiority and criminal tendencies of Italians, Sicilians, Slavs and Eastern European Jews motivated the Immigration Act of 1924 that restricted Italian and Eastern European immigration, through a quota system, to their percentage of the population in the 1890 census. The 1924 immigration law also excluded all Asian immigrants, who were similarly thought to be dull witted and have poor moral character. Fear about the 'browning of America' seems to be driven by similar sentiments about the supposed genetic quality of immigrant groups. Why else would emphasize be placed on skin complexion instead of something more meaningful like culture (Race is more distinguishable by facial morphology than complexion anyway)? If it was about culture it would be called the latinizing of America, but as we already know when people say Latino or Hispanic what they really mean is mestizo because phenotype tends to make a greater impression than country of origin or first language. The emphasize then is really racial purity, but America has never been racially pure even when it was supposedly 90% white. White Americans, especially in Southern states like Louisiana and Mississippi, like mestizo immigrants from Mexico and Central America, have some American Indian ancestry and admixtures from other races; the very origin of the one drop rule was meant to resolve centuries of miscegenation here. The only real consequence of restricting legal immigration is to limit the number of people of a certain phenotype from coming to the U.S. If non-white immigration is considered genocide, then so to should interracial marriage because it also reduces the percentage of white people (by phenotype) in the population. However, I doubt mainstream conservatives lamenting demographic changes will follow alt-right ideology to it's logical conclusion i.e. a return to racial segregation, but they are still equating a lack of authoritarianism and government control over breeding and migration with genocide.

The 90% white majority that some conservatives like to reminiscence about was not the result of lassie fair immigration from Europe. As I already mentioned, the immigration act of 1924 excluded immigrants from an entire continent and restricted Italian/Sicilian immigration (considered WOPs until the 1960s) to a mere fraction of what it was between 1900 and 1920. Prior to the 1924 immigration act, average Italian and Sicilian immigration to the U.S. had risen to 216,000 people per year, which is a lot more than the 124,000 legal immigrants that arrive from Mexico each year and has a much greater impact when we account for the fact that the U.S. population was one-third of its current size. Since the National Origins quota system was scrapped in 1965, the Asian American population has grown exponentially from 0.5% of the population in 1960 to about 6% of the population today and are projected to make up 14% of the U.S. population in the next 50 years as well as the largest immigrant group in the U.S. In fact, the rate of Asian immigration has already eclipsed Hispanic (mestizo) immigration. In 2016, more people immigrated to the U.S. from India (126,000) than Mexico (124,000), and immigrants from China (121,000) made up the third top country of origin for the year. Even though the Asian population is growing faster than the Hispanic population and is set to more than double in the next 50 years, none on the right seem to be fear mongering about the 'yellowing of America'. Perhaps prejudice against Indians and East Asians has fallen out of fashion since they cannot be used as a convenient scapegoat for crime and welfare dependency. For one, Asian Americans commit crimes at a lower rate than native whites and on average are more financially successful. However, immigrants from Asia certainly come from poorer and dirtier countries, but they do not, as Tucker's argument would have us conclude, make the U.S. poorer and dirtier as evidence by their over-representation in STEM fields and college graduates. Having a college education helps in this regard, but what Tucker and many others fail to realize is that immigrant labor is generally more productive in developed countries with better infrastructure, a better education system, stronger property rights protections, and less government corruption than it is in third world countries with worse infrastructure, a worse education system, weaker property rights protections, and more government corruption. This is why both seasonal agricultural workers from Central America and software designers from China can earn higher wages in the U.S. and accumulate more wealth than they could in their home countries.

Given historical changes in who is categorized as white, white Americans may not even become a minority in the projected year 2045. Olive skinned Italians from the Mediterranean coast were once considered another race by the Anglo-Saxon majority (some still dispute their white European identity) as were Slavs, Accadians and ethnic Jews; all three are now counted as white in the census. Some Eurasians, Turks, Armenians and Iranians are also considered white by the federal government and by the general populace as long as they don't embrace Islam. The franchise could be expanded to Hispanics over the next few decades thereby nullifying the supposed white minority trajectory. 53% of Hispanics already identify as white, which explains the discrepancy between the supposed white percentage of the population (72.4%) and the non-Hispanic white percentage of the population (63%) in the census. Marriages between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites and assimilation into the Anglosphere could increase the number of Hispanics who identify as white, maintaining a white majority into the near future (who may or may not vote Republican).

#white supermacists #eugenics #racisim #trump #tucker carlson #ann coulter #laura ingraham #immigration #immigrants #fascism #demographics #diversity #inclusion #fearmongering #racial prejudice

0 notes

onlineworkyou2b · 6 years ago

Link

Investigations Into The Personal and Political Mount For Trump

Under two years into Trump's administration, his business partners, political counselors and relatives are being tested, alongside the acts of his late dad.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Investigations currently snare Donald Trump's White House, crusade, progress, initiation, philanthropy and business. For Trump, the political, the individual and the profoundly close to home are for the most part under examination. Under two years into Trump's administration, his business partners, political consultants and relatives are being tested, alongside the acts of his late dad. On Saturday, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke turned into the fourth Cabinet part to leave under a moral cloud, having started 17 examinations concerning his activities at work, by one guard dog's check. The majority of this with the main unique insight examination against a president in 20 years hanging over Trump's head, turning out charges and solid equipping blameworthy supplications from subordinates while keeping in anticipation whether the president — "Singular 1" in examiner Robert Mueller's coded legalese — will wind up blamed for criminal conduct himself. The extent of the investigation has formed Trump's administration, demonstrating an unfaltering diversion from his overseeing plan. Up until this point, a lot of it has been propelled by administrative examiners and government guard dogs that shun partisanship. The force is sure to increment one year from now when Democrats expect control of the House and the subpoena control that accompanies it. In spite of the fact that Trump rejects the examinations as politically roused "witch chases," his high-octane Twitter account often double-crosses exactly how devoured he is by the investigation. He's likewise said to watch long periods of TV inclusion on achievement days in the examinations. "It saps your vitality, redirects your consideration and you can't lead in light of the fact that your rivals are quite agitated against you," Cal Jillson, a Southern Methodist University political specialist and student of history, said of the investigation. "It debilitates your companions and encourages your foes." Midway through his term, Trump is attempting to convey on his focal battle guarantees. He may end the year without a Republican-drove Congress giving him the $5 billion he needs for an outskirt divider. What's more, he's reviewed couple of administrative needs for 2019. Regardless of whether he had, it's impossible the new Democratic House lion's share would have much impetus to help a president debilitated by examinations pile on wins as his very own re-appointment battle approaches. Maybe not since Bill Clinton felt harassed by a "huge conservative trick," as Hillary Clinton put it, has a president been under such coercion from examination. This danger has accompanied Trump's gathering responsible for Congress and the Justice Department driving no less than three separate criminal examinations. They are the Mueller test investigating conceivable plot, hindrance of equity or other bad behavior in contacts between the Trump battle and Russia; the New York crusade back case including quiet cash paid to Trump's supposed darlings; and now a case from New York, first detailed by The Wall Street Journal this previous week, looking at the funds and tasks of Trump's debut panel and whether outside premiums made unlawful installments to it. Behind those issues is a battery of claims or request from state lawyers general and different gatherings attached predominantly to Trump organizations. Best case scenario, the examinations are eclipsing what has been sure monetary news. Even under the least favorable conditions, the tests are a danger to the administration, Trump's family and his business advantages. The profound jumping will just develop in the new year when Democrats assume control over the House. They are relied upon to dispatch their very own examinations and could seek after indictment, however party pioneers alert they could confront a political reaction by making that stride. Regardless of whether Trump stays away from reprimand, the Democratic examinations will make migraines. Organization authorities will be called to affirm under the watchful eye of Congress and legislators will look for a trove of records, most likely including Trump's expense forms, which he has declined to make open. A stripped down White House staff may battle to keep up. A count by the Brookings Institution discovers in excess of 60 percent of Trump's best assistants have left in the initial two years, a turnover rate surpassing the past five presidents. Moreover, 10 Cabinet secretaries have withdrawn, more than Barack Obama, George W. Shrubbery and Clinton lost in two years. The shake-ups now have left Mick Mulvaney, Trump's spending head, carrying out twofold responsibility uncertainly as the president's head of staff. That blend makes it difficult to envision a president viably occupied with strategy, regardless of whether — as on account of Clinton — the attracted out examinations lead to an indictment that neglects to evacuate the president. "The cutting edge administration is exceptionally unpredictable and requesting so you require the president's complete consideration," Jillson says. "Where your consideration ought to be, you're likewise contemplating gathering with your legal counselors." As the examinations mount, couple of Republicans have separated themselves openly from Trump. Yet, secretly, a few legislators do stress that the examinations will harm his re-appointment prospects and their very own odds in 2020 House and Senate races. The government battle back test has put GOP legislators in an especially unbalanced position. Investigators — and in addition Trump's long-lasting individual legal counselor Michael Cohen and a newspaper organization that has for some time been a partner — declare that Trump guided quiet installments to keep ladies close-lipped regarding affirmed issues in the end a long time of the 2016 crusade. Such an installment would disregard battle back laws. Cohen was condemned this previous week to three years in jail. Underscoring the exercise in careful control for Republicans, active Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah at first expressed that he didn't much think about Trump being ensnared in Cohen's wrongdoing, at that point reconsidered his words. "I made remarks about charges against the president that were unreliable and a poor reflection on my extensive record of devotion to the standard of law," Hatch said in an announcement Friday. Five individuals in Trump's circle have confessed to charges in the proceeding with Mueller test. Among them, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were Nos. 1 and 2, separately, for a period in Trump's presidential crusade. George Papadopoulos, a lower-level battle consultant, was condemned to 14 days in jail and is out. The others are Michael Flynn, who was Trump's first national security guide in office and is to be condemned Tuesday, and Cohen, who is relied upon to start his sentence in March. Likewise, the uncommon guidance's office says Flynn, in giving 19 meetings and turning over a heap of records, has aided a criminal examination that presently can't seem to be uncovered. At the end of the day, there's no imaginable closure. Trump is additionally presented to lawful hazard past that from government examiners. Among the claims or examinations: — Democratic lawyers general in Maryland and the District of Columbia and congressional Democrats are testing the Trump Organization's business exchanges with remote and state government interests, for example, those at his Washington lodging, refering to the protected prohibition on presidents taking installments from such sources without congressional assent. — Summer Zervos, when a competitor on Trump's TV appear, has sued Trump for criticism for blaming her for lying. She affirmed in 2016 that he reached her. He's fizzled a few times to wreck the case. — New York impose authorities are investigating whether Trump or his beneficent establishment distorted expense obligation. What's more, the New York charge office said it is "vivaciously seeking after every single suitable road of examination" after a New York Times report discovered Trump and his family, returning to exchanges by his dad, Fred Trump, undermined charges for a considerable length of time. The report said Trump got the identical today of in any event $413 million from his dad, quite a bit of it through questionable expense moves. Trump called the report "an extremely old, exhausting and regularly told hit piece on me." — New York experts claim in a claim that Trump unlawfully tapped his altruistic Trump Foundation to settle legitimate question, help his crusade for president and cover individual and operational expense, including the buy of an actual existence measure picture of himself for $10,000. Stanley Renshon, political researcher at the City University of New York and a psychoanalyst, says the majority of that means many individuals, not simply the left, "endeavoring to make his administration unsound." It is, maybe, vaster than the conservative "intrigue" the Clintons persevered, Renshon says. "I consider it the everyone connivance."

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

benrleeusa · 6 years ago

Text

[Ilya Somin] Political Ignorance and the Midterm Elections

It is not yet clear who will win. But widespread political ignorance already ensures many of us will be losers.

Tomorrow, the United States will have an important election. The results may well turn out to be unusual in various ways. But one unfortunate element of continuity is that, whoever wins, the outcome is likely to be heavily influenced by widespread political ignorance. Public ignorance is a longstanding problem, as polls have long found that most of the public has very little understanding of government and public policy. The available data suggests that things have not changed much this time around. For example, recent surveys find bipartisan voter ignorance about numerous basic facts about government policy, evidence that only 36 percent of Americans could pass the relatively simple civics test administered to immigrants who want to become citizens, and that 52% of Americans cannot name even one Supreme Court justice (despite extensive recent public controversy about the Court's decisions, and the political battle over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh). The public also continues to be ignorant about the distribution of federal spending.

Not all the information tested on these surveys (and others like them) is truly necessary to be a well-informed voter. But, collectively, the data paints a picture of an electorate with very low levels of political knowledge. Such ignorance reduces the quality of government policy, and creates opportunities for politicians and interest groups to exploit public ignorance for their own benefit. Those voters with relatively higher levels of political knowledge, are often highly biased in their evaluation of information, acting more like "political fans" cheering on Team Red or Team Blue than truth-seekers.

Most of this ignorance is not the result of stupidity on the part of voters, or lack of available information. It is, to a great extent, entirely rational behavior driven by the fact that there is so little chance that any one vote will change the outcome of an election. If your only reason to become informed about politics is to be a better voter, that's barely any incentive at all. As a result, most voters tend to be "rationally ignorant" about politics, and the minority who follow it relatively closely tend to be highly biased in their evaluation of information, because getting at the truth is not the main reason why they seek it out in the first place. This kind of bias has been exacerbated by the growing polarization and partisan hatred that afflicts American politics.

While political ignorance is far from a new problem, it is particularly noteworthy in an election that is - like most midterms - in significant part a referendum on the performance of the incumbent president. While Trump is not formally on the ballot, the GOP has (with few exceptions) endorsed his tactics and agenda. A Republican victory would, first and foremost, be a triumph for the president. And that president rose to power in large part by exploiting ignorance about issues like immigration and trade. This year, he has doubled down on the same strategy, by such tactics as making numerous bogus claims about the supposed threat posed by the Central American refugee "caravan."

But, while Trump is a particularly egregious exploiter of political ignorance, many of his tactics are just more extreme versions of those used by more conventional politicians. For example, it is likely that none of Trump's deceptions - so far - has been as successful as that which President Obama used to promote his signature legislation: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" - a deserving winner of the Politifact lie of the year award (which Trump went on to win himself last year). Like Trump's deceptions, Obama's line succeeded in large part because most voters did not take the time to learn the truth, even though it was readily available online and elsewhere.

Similarly, like Trump himself, many of his Democratic opponents exploit public ignorance about government spending by claiming that we can maintain or even massively expand current levels of entitlement and defense spending without raising taxes on anyone but "the rich." The growing "democratic socialist" wing of the party has taken this canard of hand to even more egregious heights.

Especially when it comes to this year's election, some may dismiss concerns about political ignorance on the ground that all voters really need to know is which of the two major parties is less bad than the alternative. Democrats may contend (with some justice) that the Trump-era GOP is so obviously awful that there is no need for any more detailed examination of its policies or those of the opposition.

There is some truth to this position. But it ultimately underrates the dangers of ignorance.

I'm a believer in the logic of voting for the lesser evil. And in this election, I tend to agree that a Democratic victory would indeed be preferable on that basis, in large part for the reasons outlined by Reason's Shikha Dalmia. In addition, historical evidence suggests that divided government leads to relatively lower levels of federal spending and budget deficits, a point well made by no less a figure than Kevin Hassett, now chair of Trump's Council of Economic Advisers. At the very least, I think there's a strong case that a Democratic victory is preferable when it comes to control of the House of Representatives; the Senate and various state and local races are more complicated, because the significance of judicial nominations when it comes to the former, and the presence of many issues distinct from national ones with respect to the latter. As that last qualification implies, using simple heuristics to identify the lesser evil is often a more difficult task than it seems, especially when there are numerous different offices and referendum initiatives on the ballot, which address widely divergent issues.

But even if voters are able to successfully identify the lesser evil on election day, most of the harm caused by political ignorance has already been done by that point. I summarized the key reason why here:

[Many focus] on the ways in which ignorance and bias might lead voters to make poor choices between the available alternatives. But public ignorance also has a big effect in determining what those choices will be in the first place. Candidates and parties know they face a largely ignorant electorate, and they structure their platforms accordingly. For example, [Marcus] Gee alludes to the fact that all three... parties [in the recent Ontario election] are largely acting as if the province's very serious fiscal problems can be finessed through a combination of smoke and mirrors and pretending they don't exist. If the voters were better-informed about fiscal issues, the parties could not get away with that, and quite likely would not even try to do so. Similarly, voter ignorance played a major role in ensuring that American voters faced such terrible options in the 2016 general election.... By the time we we get to the polls on election day, much of the harm caused by voter ignorance has already been inflicted, by ensuring that we really do face a choice of evils.

Whoever wins tomorrow's elections, widespead political ignorance has already ensured that most Americans will be losers, at least relative to a world where that problem was less severe.

In principle, there is much that voters can do to improve their performance - both by learning more about the issues and by trying to curb their biases. I discussed several such steps here, and see also this useful article in Scientific American and Georgetown Prof. Jason Brennan's recommendations in his excellent The Ethics of Voting. If you are unable or unwilling to become a reasonably competent voter, there is nothing wrong with simply abstaining from ignorant voting. Given our limited time and energy, it isn't wrong to be ignorant about various candidates and issues. But, with some exceptions, it is generally wrong to inflict that ignorance on the rest of society. And, despite oft-heard claims to the contrary, staying home on election day does not mean you have no right to complain. You still have every right to condemn harmful and unjust government policies. For what it is worth, I practice what I preach, and abstain from voting myself, when it comes to races and referendum initiatives that I know little or nothing about.

Sadly, however, I am not optimistic that more than a small fraction of voters will indeed improve their performance, or seriously consider their own ignorance as a reason for abstention in cases where they would otherwise be inclined to vote. Ironically, the kinds of people who carefully consider these questions are probably already much more knowledgeable and less biased than most of the electorate.

In the long run, the best ways to mitigate the dangers of political ignorance require structural change. I believe we can best alleviate the danger limiting and decentralizing the power of government, and enabling people to make more decisions by "voting with their feet" rather than at the ballot box. Foot voters deciding where they want to live or making choices in the private sector have much stronger incentives to become well-informed than ballot box voters do. But I recognize that there is a range of other possible ways to reduce the harm caused by public ignorance, and am open to considering them. It may be that no one strategy will be sufficient by itself.

In the meantime, we should at least recognize the seriousness of the problem, and that it cannot be fixed merely by defeating any one particularly egregious candidate or party.

NOTE: A few parts of this post have been adapted from previous posts on related issues, here and here.

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

How Are Democrats And Republicans Alike

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-are-democrats-and-republicans-alike/

How Are Democrats And Republicans Alike

How Did This Switch Happen

American people believe ‘something fishy’ occurred at election

Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government’s role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power traditionally, a Republican stance.;

But Republicans didn’t immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government.;

Related: 7 great congressional dramas

“Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice,” Rauchway wrote in an archived 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party’s small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.

But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government?;

According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.

Related: Busted: 6 Civil War myths

Additional resources:

What Is The Democratic Party

Democratic Party is a big party in the USA. The Democratic-Republican Party processes this party. It is one of the two major political parties. It was most noteworthy in 1828 by Andrew Jackson, who was the first president of this party. Washington DC headquarters of this party. Its symbol is the donkey, and the color is blue. For instance:-

Read more: Management vs. Administration.

Red States And Blue States List

Due to the TV coverage during some of the presidential elections in the past, the color Red has become associated with the Republicans and Blue is associated with the Democrats.

The Democratic Party, once dominant in the Southeastern United States, is now strongest in the Northeast , Great Lakes Region, as well as along the Pacific Coast , including Hawaii. The Democrats are also strongest in major cities. Recently, Democratic candidates have been faring better in some southern states, such as Virginia, Arkansas, and Florida, and in the Rocky Mountain states, especially Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico.

Since 1980, geographically the Republican “base” is strongest in the South and West, and weakest in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. The Republican Party’s strongest focus of political influence lies in the Great Plains states, particularly Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, and in the western states of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.

Also Check: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

Difference Between Democratic And Republican Party :

It is so tough to find out the difference between the republic and the democratic party. Here, there are some crucial differences between the democratic and republican parties to clear the audience and concerned people. We can point out ten dissimilarities in some categories. Such as:

1. Woman Abortion:

The first difference between the democratic and republican parties is womens abortion. Democrats believe at a sweet woman will have the right to do abortion in reproductive health care service. Whereas Republicans want to ban it from the constitution. Republicans stand against the killing of a fetus.

Read More: Major Symptoms of Democratic Backsliding

2. Same-Sex Marriage Rights:

Secondly, same-sex marriage legalizes the Democrats party. On the other hand, the Republican Party is against it. It is another difference between the democratic party and the republic party.

3. Climate Change:

Thirdly, Democrats believe that Climate change pretenses an urgent. It is a real threat to our national security, our economy, and our childrens health and futures. While Republicans doubt whether the climate is changing, rejecting the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution with intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy.

4. Israel Issue:

Read more: Private Administration vs. Public Administration

5. Voting Rights:

6. Money in Politics:

7. Iran Issue:

Increased Media Consumption And The Perception Gap

But not every media outlet is the same. We identified how specific news sources are associated with varying levels of distorted understanding in their audiences. Some news sources are associated with larger Perception Gaps, in particular Breitbart, Drudge Report and popular talk radio programs such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. But large Perception Gaps are also associated with liberal sources such as Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. Only one media source is associated with better understanding other Americans views: the traditional television networks of ABC, NBC and CBS. Overall, these findings suggest that media is adding to a polarization ecosystem that is driving Americans apart.

Recommended Reading: Compromise Of 1877 Effects

Republicans And Democrats Have Similar Goals They Will Make Different Arguments

By Cecilia Kang

If there is one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, its that the internet giants have become too powerful and need to be restrained. Many lawmakers also agree that the companies should be stripped of a law that shields websites from liability for content created by their users.

But members of the Senate commerce committee will almost certainly make wildly different arguments to drive home their points on Wednesday.

Republicans regularly accuse Facebook, Google and Twitter of censoring conservative viewpoints by labeling, taking down and minimizing the reach of posts by Republican politicians and right-leaning media personalities. They have the support of President Trump, who issued an executive order this summer aimed at stripping the technology companies of their safe harbor under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Three Republican senators Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee will almost certainly accuse the Silicon Valley giants of censorship. The senators have been among the most vocal about a perceived liberal bias inside the tech companies. Some of the hardest questions and finger pointing could be directed at Jack Dorsey, the chief executive of Twitter, for recent decisions to take down and label posts from Mr. Trump.

Difference Between Democratic And Republican Party With Similarities

Democrats and Republicans are the two main political parties in the USA. Both parties hold the most of the seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives. They also obtain the maximum number of Governors. Although both parties mean well for US citizens, they have distinct differences. These difference between democratic and republican party are mainly in political, ideological, economic, and social pathways. However, we will try to cover the topic in this article.

Differences and Similarities between democratic and republican party are the main topics. We will know about the Republican Party and Democratic Party at first. Therefore, here is the basic concept of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

1.2 Similarities of Democrats with Republicans:

You May Like: Who Said We Are All Republicans We Are All Federalists

Making The Audience Laugh And Cry

It has become a cliché to declare that Republicans and Democrats live in two different worlds these days, but it turns out there is some truth to the observation.

New research on political behavior finds that most Democratic and Republican voters live in partisan bubbles, with little daily exposure to those who belong to the other party. For instance the typical Democrat has almost zero interactions with Republicans in their neighborhood, according to an article by Harvard doctoral student Jacob R. Brown and government Professor Ryan D. Enos published March 8 in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.

Theres a lot of evidence that any separation between groups has a lot of negative consequences. We see this in race; we see this in religion; we see this in all kinds of things, said Enos. And increasingly, we see this in partisanship in the United States.

Using geolocation data and the exact addresses of all 180 million registered voters in the U.S. as of June 2018, the two were able to precisely map, for the first time, where Democrats and Republicans live in relation to each other in every town, city, and state in the U.S. Then, rather than rely on the usual precinct or data aggregations, they used weighted measures and recorded the distance between voters to show how people are divided by geography and partisanship across the country.

Roads Will Stay Deadly

Democrats and Republicans stunned by Trump’s defence of Russia

Senator John Boozman of Arkansas praised how this bill will improve roadway safety, specifically highlighting the restoration of flexibility for Highway Safety Improvement Program funds to better protect motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Oh my.;

Both parties seem to think that states need flexibility to improve safety. But do they really need flexibility to set targets and organize funding around having more people die on our roadways next year than died in the previous year? Thats our current approach and what STRA maintains.;

A more charitable take would be that states need the flexibility to be passive to safety problems because it is beyond their control, said our director Beth Osborne. But they will still ask the taxpayer to give them more money to fix it, using roadway designs that are proven to be dangerous, like slip lanes and wide roads with high speeds near lots of points of conflict and children walking to school.;;

Don’t Miss: What Is The Lapel Pin The Republicans Are Wearing

Famous Republican Vs Democratic Presidents

Republicans have controlled the White House for 28 of the last 43 years since Richard Nixon became president. Famous Democrat Presidents have been Franklin Roosevelt, who pioneered the New Deal in America and stood for 4 terms, John F. Kennedy, who presided over the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis, and was assassinated in Office; Bill Clinton, who was impeached by the House of Representatives; and Nobel Peace Prize winners Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter.

Famous Republican Presidents include Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery; Teddy Roosevelt, known for the Panama Canal; Ronald Reagan, credited for ending the Cold War with Gorbachev; and the two Bush family Presidents of recent times. Republican President Richard Nixon was forced to resign over the Watergate scandal.

To compare the two parties’ presidential candidates in the 2020 elections, see Donald Trump vs Joe Biden.

What People Are Reading

“This action is having results. In fact, just this week, Kevin Brady said in the U.S. that he did not see how the U.S. could ratify NAFTA while these tariffs were still in place.”

Brady said the process of “counting the noses” determining which members of Congress support the agreement, which don’t, and why or why not is underway in order to produce an inventory of issues to be addressed by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer in order to secure congressional support for the deal.

Democrats say it lacks effective enforcement tools for its labour and environmental provisions. Republicans, Brady said, are concerned about the erosion of investor-state safeguards and the uncertainty posed by a clause that the deal be open to review every six years, a caveat Canada initially opposed.

“Every trade agreement is a mixed issue, and I know Democrats are voicing the need for strong enforcement on the labour provisions,” Brady said.

“For Republicans, it’s more the architecture; the investor-state protections are not as broad and as strong as they need to be in our members’ views, we still are trying to figure out how the sunset mechanism works for or against certainty for trade long term.”

Getting out ahead of the U.S. could pay dividends, said Miriam Sapiro, a Democrat who served as deputy and later acting U.S. trade representative under President Barack Obama.

“I don’t see it as NAFTA 2.0, I see it more as NAFTA 0.8,” Beatty said.

Read Also: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

And They Are Holding Tightly To Their Party Identities

Americans political behavior and beliefs have grown ever more partisan over the past 40 years. Democrats and Republicans alike have become more likely to support their own partys candidates, to adopt their own partys issue positions, and even to distort their perceptions of objective facts to fit their own partys preferred version of reality. While political scientists have spent two decades documenting these trends, Donald Trumps presidency has broadened and accelerated this process.

Republicans and Democrats attitudes toward politicians and political organizations are getting farther apart

To understand these changes, I compared the results of surveys conducted by the Internet survey firm YouGov in November 2017 and January 2020. The data were matched and weighted to be demographically representative of the adult U.S. population. The 2017 survey included 736 Republicans and 930 Democrats; the 2020 survey included 1,098 Republicans and 1,386 Democrats.

In 2017, Republicans and Democrats differed in their average ratings of President Trump by 5.8 points on a 10-point scale. By this January, the difference had grown significantly, to 6.7 points. The endpoints of the scale were labeled extremely unfavorable feelings and extremely favorable feelings. The share of Democrats who gave Trump a zero increased from 71 percent to 81 percent, while the share of Republicans who gave him a 10 increased from 28 percent to 48 percent.

Pfizer And Biontech Say Vaccine Prevents Covid

Tony Fauci, the countrys chief infectious diseases researcher, has argued that there isnt solid evidence to back a delayed-dose strategy. Even if an initial first dose gives good protection against Covid-19, he said at a recent White House briefing, its unclear how long that protection would last.

Beyond posing an unnecessary risk to individuals immunity, Fauci has also warned that pivoting midway through the vaccine rollout could send the message that theres no need to return for a second shot, whether its three or 12 weeks after their first.

Fauci has also warned that delaying second doses could help foster the growth of escape variants, or strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that are more likely to evade existing vaccines protectiveness.

Read Also: Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

Democrats And Republicans Dislike Each Other Far Less Than Most Believe

A new study indicates that some of our political polarization is based on unfounded beliefs.

Democrats and Republicans dislike and dehumanize one another roughly equally.

At least 70% of both Republicans and Democrats overestimated how much the other group disliked and dehumanized their group.

Political polarization is a well-documented issue in the United States, and the schism between left and right can sometimes feel impossible to overcome. But a new study from the Peace and Conflict Neuroscience Lab at the Annenberg School for Communication and;Beyond Conflict;may offer some hope for the future.

Often, peoples actions towards a group they are not part of are motivated not only by their perceptions of that group, but also by how they think that group perceives them. In the case of American politics, this means that the way Democrats act toward Republicans isnt just a result of what they think of Republicans but also of what they think Republicans think of Democrats, and vice versa.

The study,;, found that Democrats do not dislike or dehumanize Republicans as much as Republicans think they do, and Republicans do not dislike or dehumanize Democrats as much as Democrats think they do. This finding could indicate that some of our political polarization is based on unfounded beliefs.

Why Did The Democratic And Republican Parties Switch Platforms

02 November 2020

Around 100 years ago, Democrats and Republicans switched their political stances.

The Republican and Democratic parties of the United States didn’t always stand for what they do today.;

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed those measures.;

After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for Black Americans and advanced social justice. And again, Democrats largely opposed these apparent expansions of federal power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936.;

Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, the founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the party of small government became the party of big government, and the party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.;

You May Like: Democrats Voting For Trump

The Social Media Effect

Social media platforms provide us a personalized way to receive news and commentary from anyone and everyone with whom we are connected. In theory, this could mean that users see a cross section of their community’s political views, representing the full range of perspectives within their network. Unfortunately, our study’s findings paint a less encouraging picture. First, only 26% of American report sharing social media posts about politics. Second, these Americans have higher Perception Gaps than the national average. While those who do not post on social media have an average Perception Gap of 18, those who do post on social media have an average Perception Gap of 29. The political content we see on social media is therefore disproportionately from people with a more distorted understanding of the other side, further adding to the problem.

Republicans And Democrats Have Different Views About Compromising With The Other Party

Democrats, Republicans alike take swipes at the health bill

Overall, Republicans are divided over whether Donald Trump should focus on finding common ground with Democrats, even if that means giving up some things Republicans want, or pushing hard for GOP policies, even if it means less gets done. While 53% of Republicans say Trump should push hard for the partys policies, 45% say its more important for the president to find common ground with Democrats.

However, politically attentive Republicans broadly oppose Trump seeking compromise with Democrats even if it means giving up some things Republicans want. Just 39% of Republicans who follow government and public affairs most of the time say it is more important for Trump to find common ground with Democrats; 61% say he should push hard for GOP policies. Opinion is more evenly divided among less politically attentive Republicans.

Democrats, who were asked a hypothetical version of the question about the partys 2020 presidential candidates, are more open to potential compromise with Republicans. About six-in-ten Democrats say it is more important for a candidate, if elected, to find common ground with Republicans even if it means giving up things Democrats want.

There are no differences in these views among Democrats based on political attentiveness. But liberal Democrats are less likely than conservative and moderate Democrats to say it is more important for a candidate to seek compromises with Republicans.

You May Like: Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

0 notes

recentnews18-blog · 6 years ago

Photo

New Post has been published on https://shovelnews.com/letters-the-difference-between-the-stupid-cyclist-and-ignorant-driver/

Letters: The difference between the 'stupid' cyclist and 'ignorant' driver

THE DIFFERENCE

Regarding the recent letter about the “stupid behavior” of a bicyclist:

First, I am a bicyclist and admittedly have done a few foolish things. However, every day I see car drivers doing worse, but I never see articles about their behavior. A cyclist is moving in slow motion, at 10 or 15 miles per hour. Easily observed by car drivers.

In driving on I-694 at the posted speed of 60 mph I observed several drivers weaving thru traffic at at least 70 or even 80 mph, just to get a few car lengths ahead. Maybe foolishly thinking they can make up for oversleeping.

The main difference of the “stupid” cyclist and the “ignorant” driver is one is moving in slow motion and the other is moving at killing speed. Let’s be realistic and be observant of the real “killers” of the road and not just the slow motion “stupid” cyclists.

James M Muellner, White Bear Lake

ELECT CHUTICH

The editorial “A rundown on the basics of several Minnesota judge races” lacked critical context about candidate Michelle MacDonald, a candidate for Minnesota Supreme Court. Although the editorial mentioned that MacDonald “has been embroiled in several newsworthy controversies in recent years,” the editorial provided no details as to what those controversies are. Perhaps the most serious is that the Minnesota Supreme Court — the very court she is seeking to be elected to — suspended MacDonald’s law license for 60 days in early 2018 and placed her on two-year suspended probation. In a lengthy order, the Court detailed the reasons why, including that MacDonald “failed to competently represent a client; made false statements about the integrity of a judge with reckless disregard for the truth; improperly used subpoenas; knowingly disobeyed a court order and failed to follow a scheduling order; and engaged in disruptive courtroom conduct, including behavior resulting in her arrest.”

Fortunately, voters have an excellent candidate in Justice Margaret Chutich. Before her appointment to the Court, Justice Chutich served as a judge on the Minnesota Court of Appeals. When up for consideration she was thoroughly vetted by the Minnesota Commission on Judicial Selection. Additionally, Justice Chutich received more than 95 percent support for her election in a recent poll of members of the Minnesota State Bar Association.

Simply put, Justice Chutich is respected, experienced, and the more qualified candidate for the Minnesota’s highest court.

Paul A. Sand, St. Paul

SELECTIVE SERVICE SIGN-UP FOR ALL

If the question was asked, an overwhelming number of Americans would support equal rights for women. So, what is holding them back?

I believe we are doing them a great disservice by not requiring them to sign up for selective service as we do the males at age 18.

The benefits for serving in the military include the GI Bill for education, home loan assistance, along with many employers that grant veterans preferance.

Equal rights for all, and equal responsibility should be the goal.

Jerry Wynn, St. Paul

AN ARGUMENT FOR ‘NO’

If ever there was a case made to vote down the proposed St. Paul schools special levy, it was in the front page article of the Pioneer Press on Oct. 24, “School projects’ costs soar.” The district undertook an ambitious plan to remodel schools based on cost estimates made in 2016. The article reveals cost overruns of 43 percent, or $63 million, for eight school projects currently underway. In addition, it reveals revised estimates for eight projects not yet started to be 70 percent higher than the 2016 estimates, or $91 million.

The takeaway from the article is that if St. Paul schools can’t estimate and manage their construction projects in particular, they undoubtedly can’t budget and manage their finances in general. Until proven otherwise, vote “no” for the special levy.

Tom Gehrz, St. Paul

WHO WILL PAY?

The recent ad by the Democrats states that health care should cover pre-existing conditions, an admirable platform, but in the next breath states lower taxes for the middle class.

Well, who do you think is going to pay for this huge increase in health care costs? DUH! The middle class, of course.

J L Utermoehl, Stillwater

DIVIDED WE FALL

The only one who can bring the people together is the president of the United States. Until he makes himself accountable for his words America will be divided.

The attacks on the media happens every day by this president saying they are the enemy of the people. This is outrageous and evil.

Journalists inform us what is truth, lies and about events happening all over the world. They travel to dangerous places and put their lives on the line to report the news to us.

President Trump, his administration, his Republican base and the rest of America should be thanking them for their service.

Faye Schlemmer, Hudson

Source: https://www.twincities.com/2018/11/01/letters-bikes-move-in-slow-motion-cars-travel-at-killing-speed/

0 notes