DNC RNC

Daddy’s little ghoul

BA7E6B39-8283-4A69-B2B8-892AF6E617BE.jpeg

How the left hates. What a slur on the daughter of President Trump to make a front cover depicting her smiling while her hand points to Hamas driven bloodshed on the Gaza border as the US Embassy was opened. What it conveniently forgets is that a decision was made by US Congress in the mid-90s with a clause that had to be signed every 6 months by whomever was President to delay invocation of this act to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Between 1998 and 2017, there were 37 presidential waivers, with the last one being the one Trump acted on.

We don’t have to look too far at the candor that Ivanka displayed on a commercial flight on low cost carrier JetBlue, with her kids no less. Sitting peacefully in economy another passenger ranted uncontrollably at her about her father before being kicked off the flight. The worst thing about Ivanka for the left is that she seems exceptionally well raised for someone who has such an unilhinged lunatic for a father.

Perhaps we should thank the NY Daily for keeping the flag flying for shock jock journalism. If it ever wanted to contribute to the cause to convert the masses to ensure he doesn’t win in 2020 they are writing the advertising campaign.

Imagine if Nikki Haley runs for the GOP in 2024. How could the Democrats outflank the identity of a half Native American/Sikh woman who seems so infinitely comfortable in her own skin as a presidential candidate? How fantastic it would be to have such an intelligent, articulate and iron-willed person run for the most powerful job in the world who just happened to be a woman?

Who’d have guessed?

A2881330-F6C5-4A8C-BCE1-D9077590AB09.jpeg

In what world do people think wailing works as a way to win over people in an election? Strategy and policy matter. Rasmussen Reports writes,

In fact, just 15% of Likely U.S. Voters believe focusing on the president’s possible impeachment is a better campaign strategy for Democratic congressional candidates than focusing on policy areas where they disagree with Trump. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 70% think focusing on policy differences is a better political strategy. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty-one percent (41%) now believe the president will be reelected in 2020, up from 34% in late December. Twenty-six percent (26%) still think Trump will be defeated by the Democratic nominee, but 31% felt that way four months ago.

Twenty-five percent (25%) say the president will be impeached before serving his first full-term in office. That compares to 29% in the previous survey.

A sizable majority of Democrats agrees that policy differences, not impeachment, is the better political strategy, although a plurality of voters in the opposing party still says the Republican president won’t finish his first term in office.”

The marketplace for free speech weighs Wolf & Trump

0DDA3817-B905-4CEE-8389-D32655BBE425.jpeg

Poor old Michelle Wolf. You know, the young lady whose fingernails-down-a-chalkboard voice made off-coloured jokes surrounding abortion, Trump’s bedroom prowess, his daughter being as useful as an empty box of tampons and even portrayed WH Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a fat softball playing lesbian Uncle Tom for white women. Adam Sandler has just shredded her $4mn contract to star in Little Niki via Twitter. While CM is always against boycotts, compelled speech and virtue signaling, we’re struggling to work out whether Sandler terminated it on the basis of tasteless content or awful delivery? A combination perhaps?

Wolf tweeted back that she was fine with that because she was to play a role in the reboot of Bride of Chucky. Unfortunately that film role has also been cancelled, costing her another $410,000.

Freedom of speech is a funny thing. Wolf has every right to express what she chooses but should not complain if her backers (including her liberal mates) retreat because she picked the wrong audience to showcase them. Humour is always about fine lines. Sadly for Wolf she couldn’t even memorize her humour, having the read her jokes (?) out. The best comics don’t need scripts and can shred people off the cuff. That’s what makes them funny.

Yes, many have equated Wolf’s remarks to Trump’s greatest hits saying it’s unfair to pick on her. As a reminder Trump said,

grabbed her by the p*ssy”,

“I moved  on her like a bitch”,

“African countries are sh*tholes”

or

Michelle Wolf was over the top

Yet the market for free speech weighed his and her offensiveness. American voters had every opportunity to make sure he didn’t enter the White House on the basis of his vulgar remarks about women made over a decade ago. (Un)fortunately for them, his election to blow up the establishment was deemed more relevant to Americans than locker-room talk made in private over a hot mic.

Presumably, Wolf, much like Kathy Griffin (of bloodied severed Trump head fame), offer absolutely nothing outside their careers. They’re most unlikely to be able to force two nations to take up peace negotiations or shirt front dictactors. So when they stake their risky actions on going ‘viral’ to boost their careers and it blows up in their faces, the sole responsibility is theirs. No sympathy. In fact if it wasn’t for Trump they’d be virtual nobodies.

So is the marketplace for free speech unfair? Think of the price of people, stocks, bonds or anything else you can think of  varies depending on the market weighted bid/offer of the underlying assets. Sadly for Wolf and Griffin, the bids dried up almost immediately. For Trump, market expectations have long since been priced.

Really?

8F6C101A-1A3F-479E-AD44-F24103E3B5B4.jpeg

Really? Does Newsweek honestly believe that 59% of Republicans don’t want a woman president in their lifetime? Could it be GOP supporters don’t want to see a woman made president solely on the basis of gender? Is that irrational?

It is highly conceivable that many Republicans would back someone like US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, if she ever runs given her strength and purpose, regardless of how appalled Democrats might be. Even worse, the Democrats would die a thousand deaths knowing her Native American/Sikh background would singlehandedly outflank almost any identity driven political candidates the DNC could field itself.  To be thrashed at its own game when the opposition party doesn’t even know the rules. The irony!

However Newsweek would not be budged going straight down the line of how poor old Hillary Clinton was the innocent victim of rampant sexism. Aren’t Republicans bigger racists than sexists?

Newsweek’s Tim Marchin wrote,

Clinton’s candidacy was, of course, a big moment for women in U.S. politics. No other woman has ever earned the nomination of one of the major parties. After her loss in the election—to a man accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct—2017 became a year that was, in many ways, defined by women leaders…Millions of people took to the streets across the world in the Women’s March shortly after Trump’s inauguration. More recently, the #MeToo movement has helped shed light on just how many women have suffered from harassment, discrimination and assault. The movement has also revealed accusations against a number of men in positions of power.”

Marchin would have been far better off  conceding that Clinton’s campaign of identity politics (Obama 2.0) was on the ballot paper. It wasn’t wanted. The electorate preferred to place a serial p*ssy grabbing silver back with an agenda that better suited their needs.

Marchin might have reflected that Clinton ran her campaign like a coronation rather than a democratic election and deplorables voted for the guy who actually made the effort to see them. He may have pondered that even having an advantage of getting the questions before hand (aka cheating) saw her lose. To have her husband randomly meet the Attorney General on an airport tarmac days before the FBI testimony. Mere coincidence and who wouldn’t talk about the grandkids? It had nothing to do with her gender. It had nothing to do with those darned white women controlled by their red-necked husbands on voting day. She was an awful candidate.

More shameless clickbait journalism which tries to shame Republicans with a gotcha question bound to have wide interpretation. Here’s an idea for the Democrats – run a better candidate.

Rasmussen poll shows voter distrust of political news at new highs

B9D632C1-98C1-4EEB-B547-00FBE205D019.jpeg

A new Rasmussen Reports national poll finds that 54% of Likely US Voters now say they do not trust the political news they’re getting. This is up from last June’s previous high of 46%. Only 36% did not trust political news in January of 2017, but that number was in the 40s from 2014 through 2016. Fake news? Supports yesterday’s post which saw Rasmussen defend its polling integrity from criticism thrown at it by the mainstream media. At least this NY Times op-ed finally grasped the concept of growing mistrust in political news despite the rest of the paper ignoring it.

Food insecurity & poverty levels by US state & the 2016 election result

Food Insecurity.png

The US Department of Agriculture listed the level of food insecurity by US state as at the end of FY2016. Looking at the data, Deplorables (states that voted Republican (red) in the 2016 election) made up 20 of the 25 states that suffered the most from it. Coincidence? Looking at the % below the poverty line and 19 out of 25 states voted for Trump. Coincidence? There is a touch of irony that the Democrats, which push for citizens to be married to the state, were by and large rejected by those suffering the most and want to be free of the shackles of poverty. So is it any wonder they’d reject the establishment. Should also be a signal for the Democrats to think more widely about what makes the Deplorable tick – not free hand outs. Opportunity!

Below poverty line.png

Multiple Job Holders in the US hits a record in Feb-18

Multiple.png

Since the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been keeping score, Americans with more than one job soared in Feb 2018 to the highest level seen in that month for a quarter century. March 2017 was also a record for that month in 24 years. One would expect when the economy is in the groove that people do not need to hold down multiple jobs to get by. On a percentage of the total labour force basis, multiple job holders in Feb 2018 have exceeded the level set in 2007 ahead of the GFC, or 5%.

However since the shake out of GFC, people holding down multiple jobs has continued to rise every year for the last 9. The previous record was only 5 years. Trends in disability payments and food stamps shows eerily similar trends since 2002.

SNAP (food stamp) recipients numbered as follows (working disability recipients in brackets, with cost outlays per annum)

1994: 27.47 million ( 6.381mn, cost $2.621bn)

1997: 22.58 million (6.998mn, cost $3.253bn)

2002: 19.10 million (8.109mn, cost $4.621bn)

2007: 26.32 million (9.858mn, cost $7.127bn)

2013: 47.67 million (12.156mn, cost $10.25bn)

2017: 42.20 million (Dec 2016 fig, 11.832mn, cost $10.316bn)

The Social Security Administration (SSA) highlights that back pain and musculoskeletal problems are 32.3% of disability claims, followed by mental illness at 26.3% (up from 19.2% in 2011) in 2016. This compares to 8.3% and 9.6% respectively in 1961. Half of claims in the 1960s came from heart attack/stroke and ‘other’ categories which made up only 17% of the 2016 figure.

Disabled beneficiaries aged 18–64 in current-payment status accounted for 4.7% of the population aged 18–64 in the United States. The states with the highest rates of disabled beneficiaries – 7%+ -were Alabama (SNAP benefits 17% of population), Arkansas (13%), Kentucky (15%), Maine (14%), Mississippi (18%), and West Virginia (19%). All above the national SNAP average of 13% and only Maine that voted Democrat in the 2016 election. Coincidence?

Could it be that more Americans are sick of living off more and more handouts? Seems plausible that Trump’s delivery to the White House was driven by these immutable trends – they want change to a system which they know can’t sustainably deliver forever like this. That is why tax breaks resonate. Why tariffs strike a chord. None-the-less maybe the uptick in multiple jobs is highlighting that things aren’t moving quickly enough.