18
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 16 Aug, 2024 02:28 am
Quote:
In 2021 a study by the RAND Corporation found that drug prices average 2.56 times higher in the U.S. than in 32 other countries. For name brand drugs, U.S. prices were 3.44 times those in comparable nations. Almost exactly two years ago, on August 16, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law. Among other things, that law permitted Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a provision about 83% of voters supported.

Republicans opposed the measure, siding with drug company executives who insist that high prices are necessary to create an incentive for drug companies to innovate, as their investment in research and development depends on the revenue they expect from new drugs. Ultimately, not a single Republican voted for the Inflation Reduction Act itself, and Vice President Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote that gave the act the votes to go to the president’s desk.

About a year later, on August 29, 2023, the government announced the first ten drugs over whose prices it would negotiate on behalf of about 65 million Medicare recipients. The ten drugs are among those with the highest total spending in Medicare Part D, which is the Medicare plan that covers drugs administered at home. The original plan for Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 covered drugs administered in health care settings, but it was not until 2003, after almost 40 years of medical innovation had significantly changed our management of chronic illnesses, that Congress included those drugs someone takes at home. At the time, to get Republicans behind the bill, Congress explicitly prohibited the government from negotiating the prices of medications.

Today the Biden-Harris administration announced it has reached agreements with pharmaceutical companies for those ten drugs. The new prices offer discounts of from 38% to 79% off list prices. The new prices would have saved the government an estimated $6 billion last year if they had been in effect. About 9 million people take those drugs and will save about $1.5 billion out of pocket after the new prices go into effect on January 1, 2026.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expects to select the next 15 drugs for negotiation by February 1, 2025, although Trump and the Republicans have vowed to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act conferring on the government the ability to negotiate drug prices, so a Trump-Vance victory would presumably change that plan.

Speaking together in Maryland today for the first time since Biden announced he would not accept the Democratic nomination for president and instead endorsed Vice President Harris, Biden and Harris praised the drug negotiations and each other. We’re in a weird moment, in which the press seems to be demanding detailed policy positions from Vice President Harris as she tries to win the presidency in 2024, while putting little comparable pressure on former president Donald Trump, who is the Republican presidential nominee.

Yesterday the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that inflation had fallen below 3% for the past year while economic growth continues strong and unemployment is low, putting us in what some call a “Goldilocks economy,” neither too hot nor too cold. Today, news broke that retail sales were up 1%, higher than expected, and the stock market rallied, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average ending the day over 40,000.

There is every reason to think that a Harris presidency will continue the policies that put the U.S. in such an enviable position. Nonetheless, a reporter today asked President Biden: “How much does it bother you that Vice President Harris might soon, for political reasons, start to distance herself from your economic plan?” Biden responded: “She’s not going to.” Another asked: “Will Bidenomics continue under Vice President Harris?” The president responded: “It doesn’t matter what the hell you call it, the economy is going to continue. With…all the legislation we passed, it’s working. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s working.”

In contrast, Trump has been unable to articulate any actual policies for an economic program. After yesterday’s planned economic speech became a rant, he called reporters to his property in Bedminster, New Jersey, today for what was billed as a press conference about the economy. He appeared before a table with containers of coffee and breakfast cereal, but the reason for those props never became clear.

He began the event by reading from a script that rehashed the greatest hits of the 1950s, saying: “Kamala Harris is a radical California liberal who broke the economy, broke the border, and broke the world, frankly.” He claimed that Harris has “a very strong communist lean” and is in favor of “the death of the American dream.” He predicted a stock market crash like that of 1929 and warned that “you’re all going to be thrown into a communist system…where everybody gets health care.” As he spoke, on the Fox News Channel, a stock ticker in the corner of the screen showed the stock market over 40,563. Trump spoke nonstop for an hour—essentially garnering free press coverage by advertising that he would take questions—before taking questions for another hour, during which he said of his strategy, “All we have to do is define our opponent as being a communist or a socialist or somebody that's gonna destroy our country."

He never got around to talking about the coffee and breakfast cereal.

CNN fact checker Daniel Dale called it “a whole bunch of nonsense.”

In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, earlier today, Republican vice presidential candidate Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) said: “We actually have the plans, we have the policies, to accomplish this stuff—that’s a big thing that sets us apart from Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.”

In fact, the Republican Party platform lists things like “END INFLATION, AND MAKE AMERICA AFFORDABLE AGAIN,” but Trump’s promises to deport more than 10 million migrants and to put a tariff wall around the country are both highly inflationary measures. Sixteen economists who have won Nobel prizes said in June that Trump’s policies would fuel inflation. They lauded the Biden-Harris administration’s policies and wrote: “We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.'s economic standing in the world, and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.'s domestic economy.”

To the degree there is an actual set of policies in place on the Republican side, more evidence appeared today to suggest those policies are those set by the 2025 Project, no matter how strongly Trump has tried to distance himself from it.

Two men associated with the British nonprofit Centre for Climate Reporting secretly video recorded one of the key authors of Project 2025, Christian nationalist Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump and the budget director for the extremist Republican Study Committee. In the recording, released today, Vought assured the men, who he thought might donate to the cause, that he and his Center for Renewing America were secretly writing a blueprint of executive orders, memos, and regulations that Trump could enact immediately upon taking office a second time.

Vought assured the men that Trump was only disavowing Project 2025 for political reasons. In reality, Vought said, Trump is “very supportive of what we do.” Vought also said that he does not believe the president is bound by the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the use of federal troops for law enforcement purposes against U.S. citizens. “The President has, you know, the ability both along the border and elsewhere to maintain law and order with the military,” Vought said. “And that’s something that, you know, it’s going to be important for, for him to remember and his lawyers to affirm.” In summer 2020, defense officials stopped Trump from mobilizing active duty troops against protesters.

Project 2025 calls for gutting the nonpartisan civil service and replacing it with people loyal to a strong president, and making the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense loyal to the president. With the power concentrated in the president, the government would enforce strict Christian nationalist ideals, revoking the rights of LGBTQ+ people, women, and immigrants and racial minorities.

Yesterday, Jill Lawrence of The Bulwark noted that Trump and his allies don’t even need to enact all of Project 2025: simply gutting the nonpartisan civil service and filling almost 2 million government jobs with those who are loyal to Trump “above even laws, courts, security, liberty, the ‘general welfare,’ and the rest of the Constitution” would be enough to destroy the country as we know it.

Think Aileen Cannon, the Trump-appointed judge who dismissed the federal case charging Trump for retaining classified documents, or House speaker Mike Johnson, who killed a bipartisan border security bill because Trump wanted to keep the issue of immigration open so he could campaign on it. Trump could install into official positions doctors who endorse quack health remedies, or officials who nod as Trump changes the trajectory of a tropical storm with a Sharpie. “Personnel is policy,” Project 2025’s authors say, and, if elected, Trump has vowed to have his own loyalists take over the United States government.

But Americans largely oppose Project 2025 and the Trump agenda, even in its vague state. In his appearance in Maryland today, Biden mocked Trump and added: “You may have heard about the MAGA Republican Project 2025 plan. They want to repeal Medicare's power to negotiate drug prices, let Big Pharma get back to charging whatever they want. Let me tell ya what our Project 2025 is—beat the hell out of ‘em.”

hcr
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 16 Aug, 2024 06:58 am
I thought blatham would like this...

Conservative Women Have a New Phyllis Schlafly

A rising star on the religious right thanks to her Relatable podcast, Allie Beth Stuckey knows what’s good for you.

Elaine Godfrey wrote:
Delivering hard truths is Allie Beth Stuckey’s job—a job she was called to do by God. And after a decade, she’s gotten pretty good at it. “Do I love when people think that I’m a hateful person?” Stuckey asked me in an interview in June. “Of course not.” We had been talking about her opposition to gay marriage, but Stuckey opposes many things that most younger Americans probably consider settled issues. “I’ve thought really hard about the things I believe in,” she said, “and I would go up against literally anyone.”

The 32-year-old Texan hosts Relatable With Allie Beth Stuckey, a podcast in which she discusses current events and political developments from her conservative-Christian perspective. Stuckey is neither a celebrity provocateur in the style of her fellow podcast host Candace Owens, nor the kind of soft-spoken trad homemaker who thrives in the Instagram ecosystem of cottagecore and sourdough bread. Stuckey is a different kind of leader in the new counterculture—one who criticizes the prevailing societal mores in a way that she hopes modern American women will find, well, relatable.

The vibe of her show is more Millennial mom than Christian soldier. Stuckey usually sits perched on a soft white couch while she talks, her blond hair in a low ponytail, wearing a pastel-colored sweatshirt and sipping from a pink Stanley cup. But from those plush surroundings issues a stream of stern dogma: In between monologues about the return of low-rise jeans, Stuckey will condemn hormonal birth control—even within marriage—and in vitro fertilization. She has helped push the idea of banning surrogate parenthood from the conservative movement’s fringes to the forefront of Republican politics. Her views align closely with those of Donald Trump’s running mate, J. D. Vance, and fit comfortably in the same ideological milieu as the Heritage Foundation’s presidential blueprint Project 2025, which recommends, among other things, tighter federal restrictions on abortion and the promotion of biblical marriage between a man and a woman.

I first became aware of Stuckey in 2018, when a low-production satirical video she made about Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went semi-viral. It wasn’t particularly funny, but it made a lot of liberals mad, which was, of course, the point. Back then, Stuckey didn’t have a huge fan base. Now she has 1 million followers on her YouTube and Instagram accounts combined. She runs a small media operation of editors and producers—and recently recorded Relatable’s 1,000th episode.

Earlier this summer, I went to San Antonio to watch her address a conference of young conservative women alongside GOP heavyweights, including the Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump and former Fox host Megyn Kelly. When Stuckey took the stage, she was the picture of delicate femininity, with her glossy hair and billowing floral dress. But her message was far from delicate. “There is no such thing as transgender,” she told the crowd of 2,500 young women. She went on to argue that feminism has hurt women because they are not built to work in the same way as men. Women are predisposed to nurturing, she said, which—by the way—is why two fathers could never replace a mother. She had a friendly audience. As she walked off, every woman in the room stood to applaud.

Stuckey’s is a movement that has felt ascendant in the past few years, especially since the fall of Roe v. Wade, which has emboldened social conservatives like her to seek new territory to conquer. Relatable is a glimpse into that crusade. Stuckey sees herself as a sisterly Sherpa helping Christian women navigate the rough terrain of America’s polarized society. “What she is doing is exactly what Phyllis Schlafly did,” Jonathan Merritt, a religion writer and the author of A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars, told me, referring to the activist who rallied conservative women against abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. “She’s just able to do it with the amplifiers of modern social media and the internet.”

Stuckey is resisting what she views as a strong leftward drift in American society. “It’s easy to be a progressive. Everyone’s gonna affirm you and validate you and applaud you,” she told me. “The last thing a woman wants is to be excluded.” Stuckey, however, is comfortable swimming upstream. She wants her followers to be, too.

Conservatives have prescribed many remedies for what ails American culture. Stuckey, for example, would like people to stop having premarital sex, and for drag queens to stop reading stories to children. And right now, what she would really like is an iced honey latte—but only 12 ounces, because it’s already late afternoon.

Stuckey had been reluctant to meet me, she said, because I was a journalist from outside the conservative-media universe. But she finally showed up—sans press handler—at a coffee shop in a North Dallas suburb. She wore another long floral dress, and her dark eyebrows were knit in a slightly suspicious frown.

“It’s Allie, right?” the cashier, a young man, asked when she ordered. “I follow her,” he explained to me.

Maybe it was this particular coffeehouse, with its white-clapboard, Christian-influencer aesthetic, or maybe Stuckey was even more of a celebrity than I’d realized, but during our two-hour conversation, three separate groups of young women approached Stuckey to tell her how much they loved her podcast. “Did you think you were going to be where you’re at when you were younger?” one of them asked her.

Stuckey smiled. “I always liked to talk,” she said. “But you just never know where God is going to take you.”

At the San Antonio conference—the eighth annual Young Women’s Leadership Summit, held by the conservative group Turning Point Action—signs outside the bathrooms read GIRLS ONLY. The current iteration of the conservative-women’s movement is a hot-pink goulash of subcultures: evangelical traditionalism meets crunchy homesteader vibes—with a little MAGA rancor sprinkled in. At the conference, a clinical social worker addressed the crowd about the harms of day care for young children, and so did Alina Habba, Donald Trump’s lawyer, who talked about facing attacks from “fake news” outlets. Speaker after speaker vouched for the advantages of temperature-based ovulation tracking, holistic remedies for pain and depression, and all-natural fertility supplements. The most in-demand piece of merch at the event was a tote bag decorated with cutesy jam jars whose labels read Strawberry Jams But My Glock Don’t.

Attendees in their 20s and early 30s, predominantly wearing sundresses and shiny hair ribbons, told me that they felt judged by their peers for wanting to have babies and be homemakers. Some said they were relieved when Turning Point’s founder, Charlie Kirk, assured them in his welcome speech that college “is a waste of time.” Here is where people like Stuckey see an opportunity to promote an alternative—for women to embrace an older idea of womanhood with new verve.

This retro brand of womanhood is feminine, not feminist. Stuckey told me that of course she wants women to have equal rights and protection under the law, but the notion that women “need to be liberated” and “go into the workforce,” rather than stay at home and have kids, “has actually led to a lot more misery than freedom.” Her push toward traditional womanhood is an attempt “to reassess some of the girl-boss culture that has permeated even some conservative spaces.” Of course, as a female employer, she is the definition of a girl boss. But this doesn’t strike her as hypocritical. “When I think of a girl boss, I think of this kind of domineering woman who puts her career first, who is independent at all costs, who don’t need no man,” she said.

Women should put family first, as she does with her three young children, Stuckey told me. “Whether you have an Etsy shop, whether you have a crocheting business, whether you have a podcast, or you’re a writer, I don’t think those things are bad,” she said. “But especially in these little years, I just think that they need to come after raising your children.” (When I asked Stuckey who watches her children while she’s in the studio, she declined to offer details but added that her husband is not a stay-at-home dad.)

Women in Stuckey’s DMs are constantly asking her how to advocate for their own socially conservative views. “Everyone knows if you want to learn the best way to win an argument or a debate, it’s by listening to Allie,” Alex Clark, a Turning Point commentator and Stuckey’s friend, told me in an email. “I hear pretty regularly from Millennial women who consider themselves to be newly conservative that they credit Allie for their transformation.”

Some recent episodes of Relatable include “Can Christians Say No to Sex Within Marriage?” and “Feminism Is Gender Dysphoria.” Despite the abrasive titles, Stuckey says that she always aims to defend her positions first using a scientific argument, and then to “buttress that with what’s theologically true.” Her critique of gender theory, for example, starts with the fact that most humans possess either XX or XY chromosomes. Then she’ll explain that God makes people in his image—and that God doesn’t make mistakes.

Unlike the many commentators primarily focused on owning the libs, Stuckey has “an integrity, a sincerity,” Amy Binder, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University, told me when I asked about Stuckey’s appeal. “There’s a sophistication with Allie, shot through with knowledge about the Bible, and linking it up to the choices women are making today.” Owens, who has had Stuckey on her own podcast, told me that Stuckey is the person “you hope your daughter will grow up to be” because of how well she “embodies the Christian values she espouses.”

American culture is saturated with themes that Stuckey finds morally repugnant. She gave up going to Target because of the store’s prominent Pride section, and she lost faith in the fashion brand Anthropologie when it shared a video of a man modeling a woman’s dress. Stuckey enjoys reading the latest in fiction, but Colleen Hoover’s novels are “basically porn,” she told me. And music? “I can’t sit there and listen to Billie Eilish without being like, I’m sad for Billie Eilish,” she said. (The singer recently came out as bisexual.) “The only topic Allie and I may disagree on is Taylor Swift,” Clark told me. “I am a diehard fan.” (One of Stuckey’s latest episodes, “Ex-Psychic Says Taylor Swift Promotes Witchcraft,” explores “occult glorification” in the music industry.)

Stuckey described her primary audience as women in the “mushy middle”—tuned-out Christians who see themselves as apolitical. She hopes to bring them into the fold and move them rightward. But she seems at least as devoted to stiffening the spines of women who already agree with her. During her monologues, her tone is blunt and mocking; she rarely laughs, and when she does, it’s usually at the expense of someone on the left. “Her following is looking for someone to help them articulate what they already believe in a concise and compelling way, and she does that,” Merritt said. And the already persuaded keep coming back partly for the scolding. “The meanness of a person like Allie Beth is attractive because it is a catharsis for conservatives.”
three pink flowers

Stuckey recalls that, as a child in the Dallas suburbs, she was always a talker. She was raised Southern Baptist, and attended private Christian schools that taught her how to write, debate, and recite Bible verses from memory. In high school, Stuckey left her parents’ church to be part of a more modern, nondenominational congregation. Later, after reading and following the work of several prominent Calvinist theologians and pastors, she began identifying as a Reformed Christian, a more doctrinally strict denomination.

Her father, Ron Simmons, was a Republican representative in the Texas state House, but Allie never dreamed of a political career and wasn’t much involved in politics during her time at Furman University, a small liberal-arts college in South Carolina where she graduated with a communications degree in 2014. For a while, she did social-media work for a company in Athens, Georgia, the city where she met and married her husband, Timothy Stuckey.

When the presidential-primary season began in 2015, Stuckey noticed something that surprised her: Many women her age didn’t seem to know—or care—about the race. Especially jarring was the revelation that one woman in her Bible-study group was backing Senator Bernie Sanders, who proudly described himself as a democratic socialist. “I was like, okay, I need to be talking to young women about these issues,” she told me. “They’re not thinking through it in the way that I think they should, as Christians.”

So Stuckey began visiting college sororities and speaking to young women about politics and theology. She launched a blog called the Conservative Millennial, and by 2017, she’d quit her publicity job and was recording political commentary for Glenn Beck’s network, the Blaze. Fox News would sometimes call her for comment on issues of the day. Later that year, Stuckey moved to the online network Conservative Review TV and started the first iteration of Relatable.

After the Blaze and CRTV merged, Stuckey’s podcast went on YouTube. She released one new episode of Relatable each week; now she releases four. Early preoccupations included marriage, socialism, and, of course, abortion. During the convergence in 2020 of the pandemic and the protests against police brutality, her podcast following surged, Stuckey said. “There just weren’t very many white evangelical women saying that, actually, loving your neighbor does not mean being pro-BLM—that, actually, loving your neighbor doesn’t mean wearing a mask and taking the vaccine,” she told me. And “there were a lot of Christian women who were looking for sanity.”

The number of Republicans and independents identifying as “socially conservative” rose during the pandemic years, according to a Gallup poll from 2023. “People can only tolerate so much cultural change in a limited period of time, and we are reaching the limits of our own tolerance for change,” Merritt said. “In times like that, conservatism can feel very comfortable and safe and familiar.” In one telling indication, Republican approval of gay rights has dropped since 2022 from 56 to 40 percent, and support for same-sex marriage is down from 55 to 46 percent. “Conservatives are becoming more fundamentalist,” David French, a columnist for The New York Times, told me.

Seeking the restoration of traditional gender roles is not new for the conservative movement. But these days, calls to take back womanhood from the feminist left are getting louder—arguably, louder than they’ve been since the late ’70s, when Schlafly helped kill the Equal Rights Amendment. This time around, the network of conservative commentators is sprawling and well financed, thanks to projects like Kirk’s Turning Point Action and Morton Blackwell’s Leadership Institute. Ahead of November’s election, conservatives hope to use gender and sexuality as a wedge—a way to peel off voters disillusioned with the Democrats. Although the Dobbs decision knocking down Roe two years ago was highly unpopular among American women, it seems to have emboldened social conservatives—forcing them to both reassess their goals and imagine new ones. “Even on gender and abortion,” Stuckey told me, “I think most conservatives are too liberal.”

One of those milquetoast conservatives is Donald Trump. Stuckey isn’t exactly a fan of the former president. Like many Christian conservatives, she didn’t appreciate Trump’s criticism of six-week abortion bans, and she thinks the Trump-led changes to the GOP platform on abortion and traditional marriage were “stupid.” Stuckey, who voted for Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Ron DeSantis in the 2016 and 2024 primaries, gets that Trump turns off many women. Some of her listeners are his supporters, but generally, she said, “my audience is not MAGA.”

Still, like many of her fellow evangelicals, Stuckey is pragmatic. Even if Trump doesn’t represent all of her views on abortion and sexuality, he will surround himself with people who do—people like Vance, for example. The president’s running mate “is definitely more my ‘vibe,’” Stuckey told me in an email after Trump announced his pick. “I like how he talks, how he writes, how he carries himself.”

So far, though, the rollout of Vance’s candidacy has not gone smoothly. The senator from Ohio has been battered with criticism for his comments about “miserable, childless lefties,” and his association with Project 2025 is awkward now that Trump has distanced himself from the initiative. And Stuckey is well aware that her Christian-conservative vision for women still commands only minority loyalty in the liberal-leaning, secular mainstream of American society.

But if politics is downstream of culture, as the famous Breitbart News doctrine goes, then changing that culture must be the first priority. If Schlafly’s life’s work was to stand in the way of the feminist ERA, then Stuckey’s might be the modern equivalent: equipping Christian women to swim against the current.

atlantic
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Aug, 2024 07:17 am

https://i.postimg.cc/fyybXmm6/capture.jpg

#ThankYouJoe



0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Aug, 2024 07:53 am
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 16 Aug, 2024 09:22 am
Sarah Cooper doing Trump again... Here
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 16 Aug, 2024 10:17 am
@hightor,
Given her long history in right wing media, I've undoubtedly bumped into her before but she never caught my attention until reading this piece. The analogy to Schlafly is right on the money other than the difference in personal attractiveness. In this respect, she's a rather perfect example of the modern right wing media's Christian Nationalist Barbie coterie. Here's one bit we can isolate...
Quote:
Stuckey isn’t exactly a fan of the former president... Some of her listeners are [Trump] supporters, but generally, she said, “my audience is not MAGA.”

Still, like many of her fellow evangelicals, Stuckey is pragmatic.


That's definitely the case with many Evangelicals but it also applies far more broadly across the Republican universe. This describes Bill Barr and Leonard Leo, for example, or Lindsey Graham or Marco Rubio, etc etc etc. The conservative movement is not dependent upon Trump or even Reagan or any individual, it long precedes him/them and is the more dangerous phenomenon. If we can beat Trump in November, that will ward off the most dire immediate threat to democracy in the US but the bad guys who find him temporarily convenient aren't going to just disappear.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 16 Aug, 2024 11:39 am
Former President Donald J. Trump has begun preparing for his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris and has brought in the former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard to help sharpen his attacks in a recent practice session at his private club and home, Mar-a-Lago, according to two people with knowledge of Mr. Trump’s schedule.

In an email, Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, confirmed Ms. Gabbard’s involvement.
NYT
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 16 Aug, 2024 04:23 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
That's surprising. I don't recall any previous instance where Gabbard has prostituted herself for money and status.

PS... Note that her obvious role here (as indicated in the piece Walter quotes) is to give him ammunition to attack Harris. That appears to be the main or only role she's playing.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 16 Aug, 2024 04:27 pm
Quote:
Luntz: Trump ‘committing political suicide’ as Harris seizes ‘intensity advantage’

Longtime GOP pollster Frank Luntz said in a Wednesday interview he is seeing a “broad shift” in the 2024 polls toward Vice President Harris as she rides her “intensity advantage” and as former President Trump increasingly commits “political suicide.”

Luntz said Harris’s recent enthusiasm boost has tapped into part of the electorate that might not have otherwise voted in November had President Biden remained the party’s nominee. He predicted that could have a downballot effect, speaking in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

“She’s bringing out people who are not interested in voting for either Trump or Biden. So the entire electoral pool has changed,” Luntz said. “And if it continues in this direction, you have to start to consider Democrats winning the Senate and Democrats winning the House.

“The actual people who are participating — she’s got intensity now. She’s got an intensity advantage. She’s got a demographic advantage. And I haven’t seen anything like this happen in 30 days in my lifetime,” Luntz continued.

Asked how significant that margin of extra Harris voters might be to the overall electoral pool, Luntz said, “1 percent, maybe 2. That’s it. But that’s enough.”

Luntz suggested there are three components — attributes, issues and conditions of the country — that build a candidate’s support, adding, “You shift the demographics, and you shift the entire outcome.”

“The issues and conditions favor Donald Trump. He should be winning this election. But the attributes are so much in Harris’s favor that he’s not.”

“I’m trying to do a focus group tonight with undecided voters under the age of 27 for a major news outlet. And I can’t recruit young women to this, because they don’t exist as undecided voters,” he said.

Luntz described a broad shift in voters toward Harris driven by the appeal of her attributes — particularly among disillusioned young adults and women.

“The people who are ‘undecided’ have all collapsed towards Harris. The people who are ‘weak Trump’ have all collapsed towards ‘undecided.’ It’s this broad shift,” Luntz said.

Luntz also noted that Trump, at times, appears to be undermining the appeal of his own attributes. He pointed to a recent moment when Trump praised billionaire business owner Elon Musk for firing union workers who went on strike to protest for better working conditions.

“Why is Donald Trump saying publicly, I want to fire the same people that he’s getting now, still getting, union members?” Luntz said. “It’s ridiculous. It’s as though he’s lost control.”

“And I know that there are billionaires who watch this show who are spending a lot of money on Donald Trump, and they don’t understand why he’s committing political suicide,” Luntz said.
The Hill
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sat 17 Aug, 2024 03:22 am
Quote:
The complaint of Republican vice presidential candidate Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) last weekend on CNN that Democrats are bullying him by calling him weird has stuck with me. As I wrote at the time, Republicans have made punching down their stock in trade for decades, and Vance’s complaint suggests that the Democrats are finally pushing back. It strikes me that behind this shifting power dynamic is a huge story about American politics.

Since the 1950s, those determined to get rid of business regulation, social welfare programs, government infrastructure spending, and federal protection of civil rights have relied on a rhetorical structure that centers “real” Americans who allegedly want nothing from government and warns that un-American forces who want government handouts are undermining the country by bringing socialism or racial, gender, or religious equality.

In 2024, that rhetoric is all the MAGA Republicans have left to attract voters, as their actual policies are unpopular. Yesterday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told reporters at his Bedminster availability that to win the 2024 election: “All we have to do is define our opponent as being a communist or a socialist or somebody that's gonna destroy our country."

But it is not just Trump. A MAGA pundit has called Vice President Harris “Hitler and Stalin combined but times 200,” and on Wednesday, Republicans in Minnesota nominated Royce White as their candidate for the U.S. Senate. “We face an enemy that intends to bastardize our citizenship through an idea called globalism,” White has said. “We must begin to understand how the global affects the local and take a stand for God, Family, and Country.” White has also said that “women have become too mouthy,” and that “Donald Trump could get up on stage, pull his pants down, take a sh*t up at the podium, and I still would never vote for you f*cking Democrats again.”

The rhetorical strategy setting up Republicans against a dangerous “other” was behind Trump’s demand that Republicans in Congress kill a bipartisan border bill so that Trump could continue to demonize immigrants. You could see that demonization of immigrants today in Vance’s straight-up lie that Vice President Kamala Harris “wants to give $25,000 to illegal aliens to buy American homes.” In fact, Harris today called for Congress to expand plans already in place in the Biden administration, and none of those plans call for giving money to undocumented migrants.

Also in that vein today was the announcement of Representative James Comer (R-KY), chair of the House Oversight Committee, that he is opening an investigation into Minnesota governor Tim Walz’s work in China. Walz is the Democratic vice presidential nominee. He went to China in 1989 as part of a teach-abroad program and went on to coordinate trips for students in China, becoming a vocal advocate for human rights in that country as leaders cracked down on opposition. But by suggesting this cultural exchange is nefarious, Comer can seed the idea that Walz is somehow operating against the interests of the United States.

This longstanding rhetoric that positions Republicans as true Americans defending the country against those who would destroy it has metastasized into the determination of MAGA Republicans to replace American democracy with a Christian nationalism that cements the power of white patriarchy. Vance has been in hot water for his derogatory remarks about “childless cat ladies”; interviews have resurfaced in the past few days in which he embraced the idea that the role of “the postmenopausal female” is to take care of grandchildren.

The New College of Florida is in the news today for illustrating the logical progression of the idea that Republicans must protect the nation from those who would destroy it. The New College of Florida was at the center of Republican governor Ron DeSantis’s program to get rid of traditional academic freedom. He stripped the New College of its independence and replaced officials with Christian loyalists who tried to build a school modeled after those that Viktor Orbán’s loyalists took over in Hungary. New College officials painted over student murals celebrating diversity, suppressed student support for civil rights, and voted to eliminate the diversity, equity, and inclusion office and the gender studies program. Faculty fled the New College, and more than a quarter of the students dropped out. To keep its numbers up, the school dropped its admission standards.

Yesterday, Steven Walker of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported that the school cleared out the Gender and Diversity Center, throwing the books it had accumulated into a dumpster. Officials said the books are no longer serving the needs of the college: “gender studies has been discontinued as an area of concentration at New College and the books are not part of any official college collection or inventory.”

The image of piles of books in a dumpster in the United States of America is not easily forgettable.

But the dominance rhetoric of the MAGA Republicans was never just about political power. Political power always went hand in hand with corruption. A new book by Joe Conason called The Longest Con notes that the modern right-wing movement has its roots in the promise of grifters after World War II to protect America against the communists they insisted were infiltrating the country. Their promises to defend true Americans against an enemy was always about getting cash out of the deal.

Conason emphasizes how drumming up fears of an “other” was a deliberate grift to put money into the pockets of those who told small donors that their dollars were vital for defending the United States. The biggest prize for the extremists, though, was the control of government purse strings that allowed them to turn federal and state largesse toward their own cronies. Conason notes that under President Ronald Reagan, Republicans’ cuts to government oversight and reliance on the private sector to regulate itself, along with their belief that unfettered capitalism was a form of resistance to communism, led to a boom in corruption.

That corruption has continued in the Republican Party, largely unaddressed as politicians insisted that those calling it out were simply un-American malcontents engaging in political hits against good, patriotic Americans. In contrast, as any corruption on the Democratic side can be expected to be sliced and diced in public, the Democrats have stayed relatively clean.

And this is why Vance’s comment about Democrats bullying him jumped out at me. Republican dominance is cracking as Trump struggles and Vance offends people, and as that dominance falls away, the many things it covered are starting to get attention—among them, stories of Republican corruption. And they’re doozies.

On Sunday, for example, Garrett Shanley of the Independent Florida Alligator, the student newspaper of the University of Florida, reported that when former senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) took over the presidency of the University of Florida, he “channeled millions” to his Republican allies and to secretive contracts. In 17 months he more than tripled spending from his office, with most of the money going to his former aides and political friends, most of whom continued to live and work outside the state. Sasse was appointed in November 2022 in an opaque hiring process and stepped down unexpectedly in July, citing family issues, although Vivienne Serret of The Independent Alligator reported that DeSantis allies on the Board of Trustees forced him out.

One of the biggest stories in the country these days is the corruption scandal in Ohio, in which dark money groups led by the FirstEnergy utility company worked with former Ohio House speaker Larry Householder to put into office politicians who, thanks to about $61 million in bribes, backed a $1.3 billion bailout for FirstEnergy paid for with tax dollars.

On Monday, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost agreed to settle the scandal. FirstEnergy will pay a $20 million fine, an amount that Marty Schladen of the Ohio Capital Journal notes is less than one-third the amount FirstEnergy spent to bribe legislators, and a fraction of the money ratepayers have had to pay because of the corrupt legislation the bribes paid for.

Nothing better illustrates the grift at the center of today’s MAGA Republicans than Donald Trump’s Big Lie that he actually won the 2020 election and that it was stolen from him by those dangerous “others,” the Democrats. The Big Lie enabled the Trump team to continue soliciting donations in order to fight for the White House. According to Conason, Trump and his fellow election deniers pocketed $255.4 million between the 2020 election and the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol to stop the counting of the electoral votes that would make Democratic candidate Joe Biden president.

On Monday, jurors found former Colorado election clerk Tina Peters guilty on seven counts in relation to her compromising of her county’s election system. Peters was determined to get voter information to My Pillow chief executive Mike Lindell, a key Trump ally, in order to prove the Big Lie. She is facing more than 22 years in prison.

hcr
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Aug, 2024 05:37 pm
I have some very serious gripes with the NYT and the Washington Post and other big political media entities as regards how they have covered Dems (Clinton, Biden) and how they've covered Trump. Here's another voice who thinks the same...

Quote:
James Fallows@JamesFallows
As best I can tell, WaPo, NYT, WSJ, PBS, NPR have among them done exactly *zero* serious stories on Trump's cognitive state and what it means for governance.

Each one of them did at least a dozen stories about Biden through that lens.

An editor should explain this.

Whatever rationales these guys have given for their coverage (when they've given them which isn't often) are not satisfactory and those rationales could walk us into a truly ugly future.
jespah
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Aug, 2024 06:00 pm
@blatham,
Jeff Tiedrich agrees with you, big time: https://www.jefftiedrich.com/
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sat 17 Aug, 2024 07:41 pm
@blatham,
So does Umair Haque: Is American Media Fit for a Democracy?

https://www.theissue.io/content/images/size/w960/2024/08/Screenshot-2024-08-14-at-11.29.45-PM.png

Quote:
We’re not just seeing Donald Trump break down, suffering obvious cognitive decline. We’re also seeing America’s media break, unable—unwilling—to function. And all of that raises the question: is it fit for a modern democracy anymore?

Consider the following:

At least three news outlets were leaked confidential material from inside the Donald Trump campaign, including its report vetting JD Vance as a vice presidential candidate. So far, each has refused to reveal any details about what they received.

Instead, Politico, The New York Times and The Washington Post have written about a potential hack of the campaign and described what they had in broad terms.

Their decisions stand in marked contrast to the 2016 presidential campaign, when a Russian hack exposed emails to and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta. The website Wikileaks published a trove of these embarrassing missives, and mainstream news organizations covered them avidly.

So. To put it more simply, media didn’t cover a hack to help Donald Trump in 2024. But they did cover a hack to help Donald Trump in 2016. That’d be Hillary’s emails, if you forget. The double standard—and the obvious bias, and I don’t like to use that word—should be clear.

And it is, to many elder statesmen and women in journalism. That’s a tweet from Jeff Jarvis above, a long-time journalist who’s now a professor. Weighing in with similar sentiments, James Fallows—an eminent writer and journalist—sounded the alarm as well. Even journalism’s brightest minds are concerned about the state of American media. I’m not a media critic. But they are.

And all that’s before we get to the media’s treatment of Biden, not so long ago, and how it’s treating Kamala now. Demanding interviews from her, as if she should speak with them, after the way they treated Biden—which was, to put it bluntly, character assassination and smears, not thoughtful discussions of the facts.

So let me ask again: is American media worthy of democracy anymore? And again, it’s not just me asking that question, but figures like Jeff, who’s on the other side of the political aisle, and James, who’s a long-time moderate. This concern is now going viral for a very good reason: we can all see media visibly failing us in this moment, and yet this moment couldn’t be more crucial to and for democracy.

How, then, are we to think about this question?

What American Media Thinks Its Job Is, Versus What Its Job Really Is

The problem that’s afflicting American media can be put simply. Punditry has come to replace journalism, too much, and instead of a focus on facts, there’s now a desperate search for “narratives,” around which to spin facts. All of this allows American media to go on in a desperate quest for profit, by way of clicks.

But what does all this to do a society? You can see that the consequences aren’t good, but I want you to really understand why.

When punditry replaces journalism, then a media’s role changes. Its raison d’etre becomes the power to confer and grant legitimacy.

Upon what? Issues. Ideas. Topics. And even people.

So, for example, until very recently, American media didn’t think much of climate change, and didn’t really cover it much, dedicating almost no resources, people, effort towards it. That changed when the Washington Post took the lead, and established a whole “climate” section. And that conferred legitimacy on climate change as a topic or subject or idea.

Of course, not perfect and total legitimacy—there are still plenty of climate deniers, and that’s why I chose this example. Because in the quest to please "both sides,” American media replaced journalism with punditry, and came to see itself as the arbiter of legitimacy.

Which issues matter in a society? Which topics should it discuss? Which people are to be heard, serious and sober and knowledgeable and real—and which deserve to remain unheard?

These are the questions of conferring legitimacy. And in a good media, a better media, these questions are taken very, very seriously. A good media understands that it has the power to grant legitimacy to certain voices and topics and issues—and it acts responsibly, wisely, putting the ideals of truth and justice at the heart of that judgment. Because the job of a media is above all to present us with the truth.

But America’s media…it’s not doing that at the moment. When it character assassinated Biden, relentlessly, it didn’t. When it literally covers up for Trump, it’s not aiding in any search for truth. When it bellows at Kamala—that’s not about truth, that’s about power.

And when a media seeks power over the very democratic institutions it’s supposed to be protecting, then something is going very wrong.

When Media Abuses Its Power

Media has a power. An awesome power, in a society. The power to confer legitimacy. On people, issues, topics, and voices. It can choose to pick someone or something out of the noise, chaos, ether—snap, just like that—and make them heard.

But this power can be abused, too.

We understand many forms of the abuse of power almost intuitively. A politician abuses their power through corruption. A police officer acts brutally towards an innocent person. A President gives away national secrets.

But the abuse of the media’s power is less well understood, because it’s more subtle, and at the same time, more complicated. When the media abuses its power, what happens is that the illegitimate becomes legitimate.

Let’s think about a few examples of that, and now that I’ve said it out loud, I’m sure your mind raced away ahead, and got the point already. What happened in 2016? We were told—warned—that we couldn’t call Trump a fascist. That’d make us the extremists, crackpots, and dangerous lunatics. But meanwhile, Trump was checking off every box on the fascism checklist.

And so the illegitimate became legitimate. Trumpism flourished, the media granting it authority and voice, and society didn’t question nearly enough the obvious: was this fascism? Wasn’t it? Was it really alright for a political movement to centre hate, violence, rage, and spite? What about an authoritarian impulse to overthrow democracy? It took Jan 6th for the media to recoil in horror, and come back to its senses—but by then, America’d had a shocking, explosive example of the illegitimate trying to force itself as legitimate: an attempted coup.

You see what I mean, perhaps, a little bit.

When the media abuses its power, the illegitimate becomes—is made out to be, portrayed as, allowed to paint itself as—legitimate. Fascism’s allowed to become just another in a sea of perfectly reasonable political forms. Violence and hate and spite are just another choice, as good as peace and consent and coexistence. Demagogues spewing spite are just as worthy as candidates upholding democracy.

This is “both-sidesism,” and I don’t use that word often, because I want you to see the real danger it leads to: it makes the illegitimate legitimate, presents it as legitimate, paints it as normal, worthy, OK, fair enough, just, deserving of contemplation and respect, “newsworthy.” It’s a form of abuse of power, and of seeking power over democracy, not empowering democracy, with conferring legitimacy responsibly, on things, issues, and people that align with democratic values.

Yes, America’s Media is Failing Its Democracy

So what does that do to a democracy? I think you already know by now. There are certain things which are not legitimate in a democracy. Never. They are outside its boundaries, just as you can’t walk across the tennis court, and smash your racquet over your opponent’s head. Those things are hate, violence, spite, rage, and the Big Lies they’re based on.

Those lines must—must—be defended. If a democracy’s to endure and prevail. And for better or worse, the defender of those lines is the media. If the media can’t or won’t do that job, then it’s left to the people, to recognize: this is a media that’s not worthy of democracy. And to make that judgment, the people must begin to observe: our media appears to making the illegitimate legitimate, over and over again, and in that way, our democracy is at risk, perversely enough, from it.

Reading American media, you get the sense of glee from journalists and pundits, who are almost drunk with power. Ha ha! I’m going to get them today. Biden, Kamala, Tim Walz. I’m not going to use my power responsibly. We’re going to drive clicks, with bait, through rage. I’m going to both-sides this and that, and forget about conferring legitimacy responsibly. And increasingly, that’s turning people off, big time, leaving them sort of disgusted and shocked by the way media is covering this critical moment in history.

That’s what’s beginning to happen in America now. The media’s surprised from all this—the shockwave of seeing people revolt against it, cancelling subscriptions, speaking out in disgust, its own elder statesmen grimacing in despair. It still doesn’t understand the mistakes it’s making, which are the ones above.

Kamala’s right not to speak much to this media. Not just for political reasons, but for institutional ones. Sure, it’s a smart media strategy not to talk to those who won’t give you a fair shake. But in institutional terms? Media needs to be reminded what its job is. And to do that, it needs a comeuppance, in the form of being reminded: it’s not the ultimate arbiter of legitimacy.

The people grant it that power. But they can also revoke that power. And that’s what’s happening with Kamala’s campaign. When she wins, and at this point, it’s a when, not an if, the media’s power to confer legitimacy will be greatly diminished, because she will have gone around them, not having sought it in the first place. And that will be a humbling moment for the media, realizing that it’s power to confer legitimacy was always a privilege.

In the end? American media needs less (way less) punditry. More real journalism. More hard-hitting investigations. Better columnists, by a long, long way. A focus on facts, again. Coverage of genuine Big Issues, from climate change to inequality to capitalism’s manifold failures to downward mobility to falling living standards and beyond. It needs a purpose again, American media, beyond just seeking power over the very democratic institutions it’s there to protect.

That’ll take a lot, and it won’t happen overnight. But it’s happening, and the truth is that once people begin to take back the power to confer legitimacy, a media is in for a rude, unhappy awakening.

It’s not just the GOP abusing its power, or the Supreme Court. Today, in America, the media is, too. That’s a perilous place for a democracy to be. And yet at this very moment, the people themselves are waking up to all this, and demanding better. In all that, there’s a deep, and profound, sense of hope.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2024 06:52 am
What’s Wrong With J.D. Vance?

izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2024 07:16 am
@hightor,
If I honestly answered that question I'd still be going long past the election itself.
0 Replies
 
NSFW (view)
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2024 02:03 pm
@hightor,
Very good comments from Hague. Thanks.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2024 02:18 pm
@hightor,
Rick Wilson is a rather gutsy fellow.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2024 02:23 pm
Trump at rally in Pennsylvania yesterday
Quote:
Aaron Rupar@atrupar
23h
Trump: "I use the term, often time in closing, 'We are a nation in decline. We are a failed nation.' And I think it's a beautiful phrase."

Could there be a more perfect example of malignant narcissism?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Aug, 2024 02:31 pm
This is something surprising and welcome
Quote:
Sarah Reese Jones@PoliticusSarah
1h
Former GOP Rep. Barbara Comstock on why she is voting for VP Harris, "After what Donald Trump refused for four years to acknowledge that he lost and his threats against democracy. I think it's important to turn the page and that's why I will be voting for the vice president."

As another person notes on this twitter thread
Quote:
Comstock was a Republican congresswoman from a large suburban/exurban/rural district in Northern Virginia

She worked in GOP politics for decades: in the Bush Admin and Bush campaign, on the Hill, as a lawyer for an array of GOP heavyweights

She is supporting VP Kamala Harris
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 02:05:48