On this episode of Liberty Never Sleeps, Tom argues there are many ways society is changing for the worse, and liberals are responsible for most.
*Bundt Lectures
*Spielberg Takes on Netflix
*Grand Canyon and Government
*Kraft and Social Justice
*Trump and Free Speech
Bumper Music:
It’s a Hard Knock Life- Annie OST 25 or 6 to 4- Chicago Does Anyone Really Know Whjat Time it Is?- Chicago This is Not America- David Bowie Where Did Our Love Go- Diana Ross Someday We Will Be Together- Diana Ross
The money pledged thru Patreon.com will go toward show costs such as advertising, server time, and broadcasting equipment. If we can get enough listeners, we will expand the show to two hours and hire additional staff.
All bumper music and sound clips are not owned by the show, are commentary, and of educational purposes, or de minimus effect, and not for monetary gain.
No copyright is claimed in any use of such materials and to the extent that material may appear to be infringed, I assert that such alleged infringement is permissible under fair use principles in U.S. copyright laws. If you believe material has been used in an unauthorized manner, please contact the poster.
Donald Trump hands a pen to Isaac Newton Farris Jr. after signing a proclamation in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. January 2018. (Photo: Official White House)
After May of 2017, I noticed a surprising and unaccountable rise in President Donald Trump’s approval rating among black voters. This was against the aggregate trend for his approval rating, which was showing a steep decline from 43.1% to his lowest ever recorded of 37.0% in July.
I began tracking Trump’s approval with this voting bloc among registered voters in the YouGov/Economist Poll, and the trend was confirmed in other polling outlets.
What I found after a full year of tracking from May 2017 to May 2108 seemed totally at odds with the aggregate of all of voters, which at around around 41% was only 2 points higher than his previous year’s level.
Trump’s approval with black voters in May 2017 was 17%, 9 points higher than his actual Election Day vote at 8%. That was still 2 points higher than Mitt Romney received. It hit a high of 21% in July and fell dramatically to a low of 5% during the Charlottesville controversy before, again surprisingly, rising back up to 17% in July two months later.
The last figure was 16% in May of 2018 with an aggregate across the 12 months of 14%.
Clearly, if even 14% translated into actual votes on Election Day 2020, then Trump would win in a landslide given the heavy concentration of black voters in swing states. Remember, he won in 2016 with just 8% support nationally among black voters.
The great imponderable was–yes, taken at face value and coinciding recently with President Trump’s approval rating among an aggregate of likely/registered voters–it is safe to say there has been a concomitant rise in his approval among black voters.
But was there any indication of how this approval rating might translate into actual votes?
There is such an indication now.
Nate Silver’s 538.Com lists daily all available Trump approval polls his site considers worthy of inspection. One such listed as a registered voters poll of 1000 voters for the period February 23-24 is the D-CYFOR poll, an international firm that surveys the United States and United Kingdom.
The firm states it is, “A member of the United States Public Opinion Research and the Market Research Association” among other professional bodies.
D-CYFOR gauged Trump’s overall approval at 43%, which puts it well within the aggregate of all other polls. On Real Clear Politics his aggregate stands at 44%. So, there is apparent credibility on that score. But deeper than the toplines, the breakdown by individual voting segments perhaps provide some unique statistics.
Trump’s approval is 16% among registered black voters, which once again matched previous research over a long period. D-CYFOR also asked about the generic ballot.
“If the election for Congress were today would you vote for a Republican from your district or a Democrat from your district?”
The result among black voters:
Republican 11%,
Unsure 5%
Would Not Vote 2%
Other 2%
Interestingly, the 11% Republican support and 5% undecided is almost identical to what the polling aggregate shows. But leaving that aside, the key point is even if the 11% translated into actual Election Day votes, then Trump would likely be on course for a landslide.
Three points higher than the 8 points he received in 2016 if it eventuated could shore up Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina and possibly flip Minnesota.
There can be many reasons for this increase in black and Hispanic support, not least of which presiding over an economy that hit the lowest unemployment level in history for both demographic groups.
His outreach to blacks in general included some high profile pardons, while pushing and signing the popular criminal justice reform bill refutes of the obvious media falsehood that he is an abject racist.
No doubt it is the sum of those reasons and more that account for his rise in black support. The bottom line is that even if the 11% turns into Election Day reality, the Democratic Party and its previous multi-generational hold on the black vote would be facing an electoral disaster.
President Trump Made the Right Decision to Walk at the Second Nuclear Summit in Vietnam
U.S. President Donald J. Trump, left, and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong Un, right, meet for their second nuclear summit in Hanoi, Vietnam on February 28, 2019.
While the second U.S.-North Korea nuclear summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, did not result in an agreement, everyone but Donald Trump got it wrong.
President Trump made the right decision, and once again left the prognosticators and critics looking foolish.
Corporate Big Media
NBC News reported there was concern members of the Trump Administration were willing to lift sanctions on North Korea before Chairman Kim agreed to the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula.
People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) reported prior that the president already made the decision to not ease sanctions on the regime before the NBC News report was published.
The White House disputed the report, which undermined the president during negotiations. But the NBC News report was not accurate, as further evidenced by the president walking away.
Kim Jong Un
Chairman Kim clearly believed the fake news from America Big Media. He offered to close down the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in exchange for sanction relief.
He was wrong.
Now, both he and Chinese leader Xi Jinping are in a box, left to wonder whether more stricter sanction enforcement is coming in the near future.
Donald Trump
“Sometimes you have to walk, and this was just one of those times,” President Trump said at the press conference alongside Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
“They wanted the sanctions lifted, in their entirety, and we couldn’t do that,” the president added. “They were willing to denuke a large portion of the areas that we wanted but we couldn’t give up all of the sanctions for that.”
“We had to walk away.”
For those who know their history, this poster and those remarks should be very familiar. In October 1986, President Ronald Reagan walked away from the Reykjavík Summit with then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
The two men had a productive summit in Geneva prior and many critics believed President Reagan would take what he could get a Reykjavík for a political win. But he didn’t, and he walked.
It eventually resulted in the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a much better deal for the United States.
BLAST Act Follows Bill to End Taxpayer-Funded Pensions for Congress, andNo Budget, No Pay Act
Senator Rick Scott, R-Fla., right, and Senator Mike Braun, R-Ind., left. (Photo: U.S. Senate Portraits)
Senators Rick Scott, R-Fla., and Mike Braun, R-Ind., have introduced a bill to permanently ban former members of Congress from lobbying.
“Rather than serving the public, too many in Washington spend their political careers preparing for a lucrative job at a D.C. lobbying firm where they can cash in on their connections and their access,” Senator Scott said.
“Congress should never serve as a training ground for future lobbyists, and putting an end to the revolving door is a common sense way to make Washington work for families.”
The Banning Lobbying and Safeguarding Trust (BLAST) Act is a companion bill to legislation introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Trey Hollingsworth, R-Ind., known as H.R.1145.
Senator Scott, the former governor of Florida, defeated Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson last November. Senator Braun defeated Democratic incumbent Joe Donnelly in Indiana.
The two freshmen senators were both closely aligned with President Donald J. Trump during the 2018 campaign, and have teamed up to further the “drain the swamp” agenda.
Earlier in February, the duo introduced legislation that would end taxpayer-funded congressional pensions. The End Plush Retirements Act would still allow members to continue using the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
TSP is the government equivalent to a 401(k).
Senate Braun has refused to accept his pension from the U.S. Senate. In the event rules force him to do so, he has pledged to donate “every penny to Hoosier charities.”
“One of the reasons I left the private sector for Washington was to help President Trump drain the swamp and we can accomplish this by permanently banning Congressmen and Senators from lobbying Capitol Hill,” Senator Braun said.
During the shutdown, they co-sponsored Senate Bill 39, also known as the No Budget, No Pay Act. It freezes pay for lawmakers in D.C. in the even the failure to pass a budget leads to a government shutdown.
“Together we can end the revolving door of career politicians coming to Washington, spending time in Congress, then enriching themselves from their service to the American people,” Senator Braun added.
Republican Red American and Democratic Blue America floating and sinking. (Source: AdobeStock)
The fundamentals of political prognostication still matter more than the machinations of news-cycle forecasters. They include the economy, demographic vote shares, historical voting patterns, electorate and candidate ideology, etcetera.
As we have begun to build out the PPD Election Projection Model, the fundamentals point to early signs of danger for Democrats in the 2020 presidential election.
Special Elections
I always tell people to take the results of special elections with a grain of salt. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore them, altogether. Over the last four election cycles, we have been able to extract worthwhile data points from them.
The Republican Party scored two big upsets in Connecticut on Tuesday, flipping a district that had been under Democratic control for roughly a quarter-century.
Gennaro Bizzarro defeated Democrat Rick Lopes in Senate District 6, 53.01% to 43.69%, which Hillary Clinton carried against Donald Trump by 26 points. Republican Joseph Zullo defeated Democrat Josh Balter in Assembly District 99 by a margin of 51.44% to 43.18%.
Senate District 6, which was the biggest upset, includes the suburb of Berlin, the more Democratic friendly New Berlin, and a small area in Farmington.
Mr. Lopes carried New Berlin by about 500 votes, while Mr. Bizzarro carried Berlin by nearly 1,000 votes. Farmington went Republican.
On February 19, Democrat Ibraheem S. Samirah won the special election in Northern Virginia for House of Delegates District 86. But the margin swung Republican by double-digits and he is the first Democrat to fail to crack 60% in the blue district since 2015.
On February 5, Democrats lost Minnesota Senate District 11, a seat that had been controlled by 3 generations of one Democratic family for over 20 years. The swing toward Republicans was 16 points.
These results reenforce a bigger picture.
Predominantly working, blue collar precincts and districts that have overwhelmingly and historically supported the Democratic Party, continue to shift toward the Republican Party.
For a first-term incumbent president’s party, Republicans lost an average number of seats in the U.S. House, and gained an above-average number in the U.S. Senate. In an election that cost them control of the lower chamber, the GOP flipped Minnesota District 1, Minnesota District 8, and picked up Pennsylvania District 14.
That is an evolution of a political coalition, and it doesn’t occur in a vacuum.
Midterms Don’t Predict Presidential Elections
As I’ve argued for years, both parties tend to misread the tide of history, and view it as an affirmation of their party. As a consequence, they overstate what the results mean as it pertains to future electoral viability.
In 2010, Republicans misread the results of what was a true wave election, only to go on to watch their nominee be handily defeated by Barack Obama. Democrats are now making the same mistake, though 2018 wasn’t a true wave.
The problem for Democrats is simple. Those suburbs and concentrations of more affluent, “educated” middle-class voters, also happen to have the largest pivot margins.
Put plainly, these districts are carved from counties that are home to the nation’s swing voters. These counties have never particularly liked Donald Trump on a personal level, yet more than 200 of them voted for him after supporting Mr. Obama.
If the battleground burbs swing back, it’ll get very ugly for Democrats, very quickly, particularly considering the gain the president and Republicans have made among non-urban minorities.
Ideology in the Electorate
Voters in the battleground districts unseated Republicans over the issue of healthcare. Voter analysis and exit polls are quite clear about it.
At Big Data Poll, we observed President Trump’s approval rating rise significantly prior to the 2018 midterms, though the GOP candidates’ vote shares lagged behind.
Even as they pulled the lever for a Democratic candidate in their district, battleground voters still agreed with the president on immigration. They felt the investigations–which Democrats have now prioritized over healthcare–were politically motivated.
Looking at the field of potential 2020 Democratic nominees, there are few who right now could be considered a favorite. The party’s platform is moving too far to the left for the general electorate.
The reelection of President Trump is the most likely outcome for 2020, as it currently stands.
Industry production 4.0 and technology concept, depicting factory production on a conveyor belt with factory operational workers in uniform. (Photo: AdobeStock)
The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Manufacturing Index (PMI) came in at 54.2% in February, down 2.4 percentage points. However, comments from the panel still reflect solid growth.
The consensus forecast was 55.0. Forecasts ranged from a low of 53.0 to a high of 57.2. Of the 18 manufacturing industries, 16 reported growth in February.
“Comments from the panel reflect continued expanding business strength, supported by notable demand and output, although both were softer than the prior month,” Timothy R. Fiore, Chair of the ISM Manufacturing Business Survey Committee, said.
“Exports continue to expand, at slightly stronger rates compared to January,” Mr. Fiore added. “The manufacturing sector continues to expand, but inputs and prices indicate easing of supply chain constraints.”
The New Orders Index fell 2.7% to 55.5%, , while the Production Index registered fell 5..7% to 54.8%. The Employment Index came in at 52.3%, a a decline of 3.2%.
The Supplier Deliveries Index fell 1.3% to 54.9%, while the Inventories Index rose 0.6% to 53.4%. The Prices Index fell 0.2% to 49.4%, indicating lower raw materials prices for the second straight month after nearly three years of increases.
“Strong start to the year, though weather has been a challenge.” (Chemical Products)
“Still fairly steady with production and services.” (Transportation Equipment)
“Economy showing general strength, especially in manufacturing. Cost pressures and tariff challenges persist but are manageable. General outlook is for stability and potential improvement in the second half of 2019.” (Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products)
“Orders remain strong. Supplier delivery continues to be challenged on some commodities.” (Machinery)
“Aerospace engine-related business continues to be strong. Energy and general industry-related business is flat to down.” (Miscellaneous Manufacturing)
“Business so far this year is meeting, but not exceeding, our forecast. We are concerned about indicators showing a slight recession for the second half of the calendar year.” (Fabricated Metal Products)
“Uncertainty of steel prices due to Section 232 tariffs on imported steel and lack of resolution of the anti-dumping trade cases.” (Petroleum & Coal Products)
“General business conditions started to slow at the end of January, continuing through February.” (Plastics and Rubber Products)
Strength in Consumer Spending Expected to Set New Record By Mid-Year
Group of friends sitting outdoors with shopping bags; several people holding smartphones and tablets. (Photo: AdobeStock/ OneInchPunch/PPD)
The final reading on consumer sentiment for February (93.8) rebounded from January, but eased from the preliminary and missed the forecast.
The consensus forecast was 95.7. Forecasts ranged from a low of 90.5% to a high of 96.5.
“Although sentiment was still above last month’s low, the bounce-back from the end of the Federal shutdown faded in late February,” Richard Curtain, Chief Economist for the Survey of Consumers said. “While the overall level of confidence remains diminished, it is still quite positive.”
Still, this is the second lowest reading since the election of Donald J. Trump. The lowest came last month during the partial government shutdown.
“Consumers continued to react to the Fed’s pause in raising interest rates, balancing the favorable impact on borrowing costs against the negative message that the economy at present could not withstand another rate hike,” Mr. Curtain added. “Long-term inflation expectations remained near the lowest level recorded in the past half century.”
The Current Economic Conditions Index was essentially flat at an elevated 108.5. It was 10.8.8 in January, down from 114.9 in February.
The Index of Consumer Expectations bounced back to 84.4, up from 79.9 in January and down from 90.0 in February.
Real income expectations among upper income households rose 3.0% to the highest level since the peaks recorded in the expansions in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
The data indicate that personal consumption expenditures will grow by 2.6% in 2019 and the strength in consumer spending will mean that the expansion is expected to set a new record length by mid year.
People count money at Macy’s Herald Square store during the early opening of the Black Friday sales in the Manhattan borough of New York, November 26, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)
Personal income rose $179.0 billion (1.0%) in December before declining $23.8 billion (-0.1%) in January, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported Friday.
The consensus forecast for December was looking for just a 0.4% gain in personal income, with forecasts ranging from a low of 0.2% to a high of 0.5%.
The report combines estimates for December 2018 and January 2019. For December, estimates include both income and outlays measures, while January was limited to personal income.
Estimates of outlays in January are unavailable due to the delay in the Census Bureau’s Advance Monthly Retail Sales.
For December, disposable personal income (DPI) rose $173.1 billion (1.1%), and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) declined $76.6 billion (-0.5%). Real DPI rose 1.0% in December and real PCE declined 0.6%.
The PCE price index rose 0.1%. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index rose 0.2%.
Personal outlays fell $71.3 billion in December, while personal saving rose to $1.21 trillion. The personal saving rate, defined as personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income, rose to 7.6%
For January, personal income dipped $23.8 billion (-0.1%), while disposable personal income (DPI) fell $35.1 billion (-0.2%).
The consensus forecast for January was looking for a gain of 0.3% gain in personal income, with forecasts ranging from a low of 0.3% to a high of 0.5%.
Real DPI is unavailable for January.
2018 Personal Income and Outlays
Personal income rose 4.5% in 2018, compared with an increase of 4.4% in 2017. DPI increased 5.0% in compared with a gain of 4.4% in 2017. In 2018, PCE rose 4.7%, compared with an increase of 4.3% in 2017.
Real DPI rose 2.9% in 2018, compared to a gain of 2.6% in 2017. Real PCE saw a 2.6% increase, compared with 2.5% in 2017.
GDP
The Personal Income and Outlays report follows the BEA combined initial and second estimate on Q4 2018 gross domestic product (GDP).
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) said GDP for the fourth quarter (Q4) 2018 came in at a solid 2.6%, beating the forecast. GDP for Q3 2018 came in at a strong 3.4%.
Real GDP increased by 2.9% in 2018 when measured from the 2017 annual level to the 2018 annual level. From Q4 2017 to Q4 2018, real GDP gained 3.1%, up from 2.5% in 2017.
Liberal commentator and activist Van Jones said at CPAC 2019 that conservatives were now the leaders on the issue of criminal justice reform.
“I have to say something against my own interest here. Here’s the deal,” Van Jones lamented. “The conservative movement in this country–unfortunately from my point of view–is now the leader on this issue of [criminal justice] reform.”
“Take some dadgum credit for being smart,” he added. “Take some dadgum credit for getting it right.”
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
