Saturday, October 27, 2018
New "Likely Voter" Poll Shows Cruz With A Slim Lead
This chart shows the results of the latest University of Texas / Texas Tribune Poll. It was done between October 12th and 19th (before early voting began on October 22nd). The chart above is of 927 likely voters (with a likely voter being defined as some who voted in every election in last 3 years, or said they will definitely vote this year). The margin of error for the weighted sample is 4.1 points.
Although the poll shows Cruz with a 6 point lead over O'Rourke, I continue to believe this race is within the reach of Democrats -- if enough of them (along with Independents) show up to vote.
Dallas Newspaper Blasts Trump For His "Nationalist" Claim
Donald Trump recently claimed to be a "nationalist" -- echoing the beliefs of other authoritarians throughout history.
Here's what the Dallas Morning News editorial staff thinks of his audacious claim:
This week in Houston, before a cheering crowd of thousands, President Trump needed no dog whistle or code words to rile up the worst elements of the far-right in this country or rally those who fear what he calls “globalists” to his cause.
For the first time since Pat Buchanan’s nationalist and nativist leanings sank his chances of becoming president in 1992, 1996, and 2000, a prominent American leader — the president no less — has embraced the term “nationalist” and encouraged his supporters to describe themselves in the same manner.
We understand that many Americans feel they’ve been left behind by globalization and want a government that looks out for their economic interests. But we see no need for the president or his supporters to embrace a term that is heavy with negative connotations that include nativism, racism, and, yes, fascism.
Marching under a nationalist flag would be divisive and intimidating at any time in our nation’s history, given that ours is a country of immigrants with diverse backgrounds and ethnic roots that join them together under the banner of freedom, democracy, and plurality. Since this nation’s inception, E pluribus Unum (Out of many, one) has been our motto.
But in today’s America, with the country torn culturally and politically, the president’s use of the term “nationalist” is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Surely, our president understands that describing himself as a nationalist and encouraging others to do the same will not just rile up the base for next month’s election but further coarsen our discourse and perhaps motivate the most radical elements on the far right and left.
Even if Trump tries to walk back his embrace of the term nationalist, which he shows no sign of doing as yet, his willingness to describe himself and his followers with the term has already gone a long way toward normalizing the word. We can expect to see signs at marches and rallies across the country that read “I am a proud Nationalist” next to “Keep America Great” signs. This will in turn bring out more comparisons in response to past and present radical “nationalist” organizations in other countries, including Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party or modern far-right fascist movements.
We understand that in Europe and elsewhere there’s a mounting rebellion against what many see as the overreach of the European Union and the diminishment of national pride in countries as diverse as France, Great Britain, Spain and Italy. The common currency, ease of travel between EU nations, and the great influx of immigrants from the Mideast, Africa and other war-torn and drought-stricken regions have tested democracies and contributed to a growing wave of nationalism and tribalism.
But America is exceptional in that it has always been a nation of nations. So much so that past nativist movements were often populated with the children or grandchildren of immigrants who made their way to America’s shores.
All of this reminds us that, 53 years ago this month, at the height of the Civil Rights movement and anti-Vietnam War protests, less than two years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, with shock and disillusionment still thick in the air, President Johnson traveled to the Statue of Liberty to sign the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 into law.
The 1965 law abolished the national origin quota system that favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe and discriminated against aspiring Americans from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The new law made room for immigrants based on their family connections to the U.S. and the skills and talents they had to offer the country. Race, creed, color or national origin was no longer to play a part in weighing who would be welcomed as an American.
LBJ spoke of unity, not strife, pluralism, not discord, and a nation of nations — not nationalism.
We look back at those trying times now, with a nation bitterly divided over so much, for any wisdom they might offer us today, and inspiration they might offer for the way forward. And we believe it is worth quoting President Johnson’s words at length:
Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers. From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide.
The land flourished because it was fed from so many sources — because it was nourished by so many cultures and traditions and peoples.
And from this experience, almost unique in the history of nations, has come America's attitude toward the rest of the world. We, because of what we are, feel safer and stronger in a world as varied as the people who make it up--a world where no country rules another and all countries can deal with the basic problems of human dignity and deal with those problems in their own way.
Now, under the monument which has welcomed so many to our shores, the American nation returns to the finest of its traditions today.
Friday, October 26, 2018
Texas Early Voting Still High After The First 3 Days
The charts above show the total number of voters and the percentage of registered voters that voted in the first three days of early voting in Texas. The numbers are from the website of the Texas Secretary of State, and show the results from 15 of the largest counties in Texas. Those counties have about 10.29 million registered voters -- about 65% of the 15.79 million registered voters in Texas.
The early voting totals are much larger than in the last midterm election (2014) -- and they almost equal the first three day total from 2016.
Democrats were hoping for a large turnout, and that seems to be what's happening. We'll have to wait until November 6th to see if it helped them.
Democrats Still Hold A Generic Ballot Advantage
Early voting has started in many states, and this poll shows Democrats still have the advantage (47% to 41%) among registered voters. Republicans have the advantage among men, those over 65, and whites. But Democrats have larger advantages among women, those under 65, and minorities.
The chart below shows the things voters will (or will not) affect how they will vote.
These charts reflect the results of the newest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between October 21st and 23rd of a national sample of 1,233 registered voters, with a 2.9 point margin of error.
U.S. Should End It's Double Standard On Iran/Saudi Arabia
Iran and Saudi Arabia are probably the two most powerful muslim nations in the Middle East, and they hate each other. That's because each is pushing to make its own muslim brand the dominant one in the region. The Saudis want the Sunni branch of islam to be dominant, while the Iranians want the Shiite branch to be dominant. In other words, they are engaged in what could be called a religious war -- and that war has engulfed all of the Middle East nations.In what I believe to be a huge mistake, the United States has chosen sides in this religious conflict. It has cast its lot with the Sunnis and against the Shiites (even though the Sunnis are the ones that funded the al-Queda and ISIS terrorists).
This makes no sense. It destroys the U.S. goals by showing the world it is not a neutral power in that region. The U.S. should not be taking sides, especially since neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran reflects the values that Americans cherish. The U.S. would be much better served by changing its policy to one that is truly neutral.
The following is part of an excellent op-ed on this subject by Jason Rezaian in The Washington Post:
U.S. sanctions on Iran are scheduled to go back into effect on Nov. 4. On that day, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) will breathe a massive sigh of relief.
After weeks of international backlash over the murder of my colleague Jamal Khashoggi, MBS will read Trump’s punitive measures against Iran as a green light for him to once again do as he pleases.
But that doesn’t have to be the case.
For years, Saudi Arabia has gotten away with funding terrorism and extremism, suppressing the rights of its people and silencing its critics, often by killing them. These are all activities for which the United States rightfully punishes Iran. But it allows the Saudis to do the same things without reproach.
It is time for that double standard to end.
The butchering of Khashoggi and Riyadh’s attempts to cover it up offer a necessary moment of clarity. They remind us that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is purely transactional, not one based on common values. . . .
Our alliance with Saudi Arabia is based solely on oil, weapons and money.
This is precisely why Saudi Arabia has spent decades and many millions of dollarscultivating its foothold in Washington. Its strength is its ability to wine and dine influencers, underwrite the pet projects of powerful Americans in and out of office, and organize large-scale PR campaigns (including online disinformation).
Unfortunately, as a result, the Washington consensus on security in the Middle East has been hijacked by Saudi Arabia and its backers, whose primary argument is that the kingdom is needed to counter the threat of Iran. . . .
Like Saudi Arabia, Iran has massive oil and gas reserves. But it has many other advantages that the Saudis do not. It has a highly educated population, including many women. It actually produces and exports goods besides energy, including agriculture and cars. It has a political system that, though incredibly narrow in scope and repressive in practice, encourages popular participation.
Any rational thinker would conclude that Iran is a much better long-term partner than Saudi Arabia — as long as Iran is compelled to abandon its most destructive behavior.
The nuclear deal presupposed that Iran would become, if not a partner, at least a more constructive rival. And there was reason to believe this would happen. The United States and Iran cooperated to fight both the Taliban and, later, the Islamic State — both, it should be noted, Saudi-funded terrorist enterprises that undermine global security.
None of the world leaders involved in the Iran nuclear negotiations considered the agreement to be a miraculous panacea to our disputes with Iran. They saw it as an opening, a test worth taking in part because the relationship with Saudi Arabia was becoming untenable.
A rebalancing has long been in order, and that happens only if we can craft a working relationship with Iran. . . .
We desperately need to put an end to the era of unchecked extremism in the Middle East, which has its roots in Tehran and Riyadh. We should adopt a realistic and rational approach, free of double standards, that holds both capitals accountable for the chaos they sow, while incentivizing them to act like responsible global powers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)