FiveThirtyEight:
Almost Half Of Voters Are Dead Set Against Voting For Trump
Obama’s opposition was never this firm in 2012.
With the 2020 election cycle revving into full gear, pollsters are asking voters whether they plan to vote for President Trump. In a Washington Post/ABC News survey, respondents were asked if they would definitely vote for the president, consider voting for him or definitely not vote for him — and 56 percent said they would definitely not vote for him. Morning Consult poseda slightly different form of this question, asking voters if they’d definitely or probably vote for Trump, or if they’d definitely or probably vote for someone else. Eight percent said they would probably vote for someone else, but 47 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else. In total, that’s 55 percent of respondents who seemed unlikely to vote for Trump.
Daily Beast:
President Donald Trump told reporters Friday there is a “good chance” that he will declare a national emergency in order to build his $5.7 billion wall along the southern border. “We’re getting ready to give out some really big contracts with money that we have on-hand and money that comes in. But we will be looking at a national emergency, because I don’t think anything’s going to happen,” Trump said at the White House. “I think the Democrats don’t want border security and then I hear them talking about the fact that walls are immoral and walls don’t work. They know they work.” He also hinted to reporters that he will announce a development related to the border wall at his upcoming State of the Union address. “I don’t want to say, you’ll hear the State of the Union and then you’ll see what happens right after the State of the Union,” Trump said.
Then there’s Ralph Northam, too soon for long reads, but not too soon for twitter. He’ll have to resign over this: Gov. Ralph Northam admits he was in 1984 yearbook photo showing figures in blackface, KKK hood.
David Leonhardt/NY Times:
The Howard Schultz Delusion
Most Americans are not socially liberal and economically conservative
True, many high-income voters are socially liberal and economically conservative. They aren’t particularly religious and generally agree with the Democratic Party on social issues, like abortion, affirmative action and immigration. On economic issues, though, these affluent voters lean to the center if not the right. They don’t like talk of 70 percent marginal tax rates, and they favor cuts to Medicare and Social Security (which they describe as “entitlement reform”).
Many commentators share these views, and they commit a classic version of the pundit fallacy: They confuse their own beliefs with the country’s. They fool themselves into thinking that “socially liberal and economically conservative” is a good campaign strategy. This is precisely the theory that seems to motivate Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks C.E.O. now planning an independent run for president.
In reality, the American public is closer to being “socially conservative and economically liberal” than the reverse.
NBC News:
Progressive pollster finds majority support for Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan to impose a wealth tax on fortunes larger than $50 million enjoys net support across party lines, according to a new poll by a progressive analytics firm.
Data For Progress, a research group that’s been testing opinion on a variety of left-leaning policy proposals, commissioned an online survey of Warren’s plan through pollster YouGov Blue.
The survey of 1,282 registered voters asked “Would you (support or oppose/oppose or support) imposing a 2% tax on the assets of those with a net worth over $50 million and a 3% tax on the assets of those with a net worth over $1 billion?”
Sixty-one percent of respondents said they supported the proposal, with 46 percent “strongly” supporting it. Twenty-one percent opposed the idea, with 15 percent doing so “strongly.” The rest were unsure or neutral.
Notably, a plurality of Republicans supported Warren’s wealth tax by a 44-37 margin. Independents supported it by a 61-23 margin while Democrats went for it 76-6.
Conor Friedersdorf/Atlantic:
The Senator Who Is Betraying the Senate
Instead of protecting Congress’s power, Lindsey Graham is urging Trump to undermine it in his pursuit of a wall.
The Framers assumed that those elected to the co-equal branch would jealously guard their power, at times even to excess. Instead, Graham has become so focused on currying favor with the president that he is betraying one of his core constitutional responsibilities in order to play sycophant. In doing so, he is exacerbating an imperial presidency that grew under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. “Each abuse builds on the next,” writesDavid French, who concludes, “The loser is our constitutional republic.”
It is bad enough when presidents, their staffers, and their apologists undermine the separation of powers in favor of the executive branch. It is even worse when a legislator joins in undermining his own branch. There is only one position for a responsible U.S. senator: If the White House fails to reach a deal with Congress on a border wall, it simply doesn’t happen.
It’s ok to click the link.