How will educational status affect the US election result?16 days ago
White voters without a college degree partially make up Trumps support base, while Democrats increasingly rely on non-white voters and people with degrees
The longer an American has stayed in school, the more likely he or she is to register to vote and to cast a ballot on election day.
At one extreme, in the 2012 presidential election just 21.6% of adults who left school before ninth grade voted. At the other, according to statistics from the Census Bureau, 74.7% of adults who had an advanced degree voted. Though the precise numbers may not be known, observers are aware of the link between education and voting its one of the clearest correlations in political behavior research.
Read more: www.theguardian.com
Trump’s rise and Brexit vote are more an outcome of culture than economics1 month, 3 days ago
Populists are tapping into the outrage of those who have been losing the cultural battles over race, gender and social identity in a globalised world
If Donald Trump loses the US election, will the tide of populism that threatened to overwhelm the world after the Brexit vote in June begin to wane? Or will the revolt against globalisation and immigration simply take another form?
The rise of protectionism and anti-immigrant sentiment in Britain, America, and Europe is widely believed to reflect stagnant incomes, widening inequality, structural unemployment, and even excessive monetary easing. But there are several reasons to question the link between populist politics and economic distress.
Most populist voters are neither poor nor unemployed; they are not victims of globalisation, immigration, and free trade. The main demographic groups behind the anti-establishment upsurge have been people outside the workforce: pensioners, middle-aged homemakers, and men with low educational qualifications receiving disability payments.
In Britain, where detailed analyses of the votes actually cast in the Brexit referendum are now available, the group most directly affected by low-wage competition from immigrants and Chinese imports people under 35 voted against Brexit by a wide margin, 65% to 35%. Meanwhile, 60% of pensioners who voted backed the leave campaign, as did 59% of voters with disabilities. By contrast, 53% of full-time workers who participated wanted Britain to remain in Europe, as did 51% of part-time workers.
The British data suggest that cultural and ethnic attitudes, not direct economic motivations, are the real distinguishing features of anti-globalisation voting. Asked whether social liberalism is a force for good or a force for ill, 87% of remain voters said it was a force for good, while 53% of Leave voters called liberalism a force for ill. On multiculturalism, the difference was even starker 65% of leave voters were against it, while 86% of remainers approved. Another analysis published by the BBC after the referendum found one of the strongest predictors of a leave vote to be support for capital punishment.
In America, polls suggest that gender is an even more important indicator of support for Trump than age or education. Early this month, when Trump was only a few points behind Clinton in overall support, a Washington Post/ABC poll compared voting intentions with the 2012 election. It found not only that white men backed Trump by a margin of 40 percentage points, but also that their support for Trump was 13 points higher that it was for Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee.
White women, by contrast, marginally supported Clinton and had swung by 15 percentage points against the Republicans. Among voters without a college education, the gender difference was even starker: less-educated white men favored Trump by a 60% margin and had swung in favor of the Republicans by 28 percentage points, while women had swung by 10 percentage points in the opposite direction and only marginally supported Trump.
It seems, therefore, that the conflicts generally ascribed to economic grievances and globalisation are actually the latest battles in the culture wars that have split western societies since the late 1960s. The main relevance of economics is that the 2008 financial crisis created conditions for a political backlash by older, more conservative voters, who have been losing the cultural battles over race, gender, and social identity.
The dominance of free-market ideology before the crisis allowed many controversial social changes, ranging from income inequality and intensified wage competition to greater gender equality and affirmative action, to go almost unchallenged. Progressive social liberalism and conservative free-market economics seemed to be two sides of the same coin. But when free-market economic liberalism failed in the 2008 crisis, political challenges to social liberalism could no longer be deflected by invoking impersonal economic laws.
But if social change can no longer be legitimised as the necessary condition for economic progress, it seems unlikely that democracies will now vote to reinstate the social conditions before the ascendancy of economic liberalism and globalisation. Racial and gender equality are now backed by clear majorities in the US, Britain, and most European countries, and even apparently popular policies such as trade protectionism and strict immigration controls rarely muster more than 30-40% support in opinion surveys. Why, then, did Brexit win, and why is it still possible that Donald Trump will be the next US President?
Both Brexit and Trump were powered by an unstable alliance between two very different, even contradictory, movements. The bulk of their supporters were indeed social conservatives and protectionists who wanted to undo the social changes that began in the late 1960s.
Two of the most effective slogans of the Brexit and Trump campaigns have been Take back control and I want my country back. But the social conservatives inspired by such atavistic and authoritarian sentiments do not make up majorities in any western country. On its own, social conservatism could never mobilise more than 30-40% of voters. To achieve majorities, the socially conservative protectionists had to unite with the remnants of the Thatcher-Reagan laissez faire movement, who resent the interventionist economic management of the post-2008 period and want to intensify the competition, deregulation, and globalisation that social conservatives resent.
This unstable political compound is now dissolving in the US, and also in Britain, where prime minister Theresa Mays government is divided between ideological nationalists and economic liberals. If the US election on 8 November confirms Trumps failure to bind social conservatives and economic liberals into a winning coalition, similar disintegration is likely among European populists, too.
In that case, the Brexit vote will begin to look like an aberration not the start of a powerful new trend toward nationalism, protectionism, and de-globalisation, but the end of a backlash against modernity by an unstable alliance of social authoritarians and laissez faire market liberals. It will be the last gasp of an ageing generation that tried to impose its nostalgic parochialism on an increasingly cosmopolitan younger generation, but succeeded in only one unfortunate country.
- Anatole Kaletsky is chief economist and co-chair of Gavekal Dragonomics. A former columnist at the Times, the International New York Times and the Financial Times, he is the author of Capitalism 4.0, The Birth of a New Economy.
Read more: www.theguardian.com
Glenn Thrush rejects journo coordination with Team Clinton as ‘tradecraft’1 month, 8 days ago
Yesterday, Gawker posted a story that exposed a close working relationship between Politico White House correspondent Mike Allen and Philippe Reines, who served as an aide to Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State. Allen’s emails indicate that he was assuring positive coverage of Chelsea Clinton.
Politico’s Glenn Thrush insures nothing unusual there 😛 TAGEND
So, in other words…
Yeah, that still just doesn’t seem right.
5 Ways Post-Grad Life Will Be Better If Hillary Wins2 months, 15 days ago
When most people think of college, they probably envisionivy-covered houses and beautiful campuses filled with carefree young people. But the reality of college is far different.
Some of us cant afford to look at those ivy-covered houses right out of high school, let alone attend them. Instead we opt for online universities, community college orstate schools. But no matter what route you take toward that degree, theres a lot of anxiety that comes along with the process.
For example: By the time I finish be paid by these loans, will I be 90 or 100?
Or, when youre a woman: Why am I getting paid less than my male equivalents when I got the same expensive-ass education?
College affordability and equal pay are plainly on the minds of many Millennials. How are we supposed to be the futurewhen were drowning understudent loan pays?( There runs another complaining Millennial !)
I mean, I love my mothers, but I dont think I could take more than one year of living in their cellar, imploring them to replace their ancient wireless router andgetting screamed at for accidentally deleting one of their1, 000 DVRd shows.
Though it might not be apparent, these sorts ofissues are tied together. Without the right people in government representing us, we Millennial folk risk sliding backward economically and socially. What would happen if we no longer had the right to make our own healthcare decisions? Or if we couldnt marry the person we love?
While one of our 2016 presidential candidates may not be tied to protecting these rights( cough, Donald Trump, cough ), at least we know one candidate is keeping us in intellect. Here are five styles post-grad life wouldbe better if Hillary wins.
1. The biggie: She wants to induce college debt-free.
Clinton has a plan to ACTUALLY achieve the goal of college being debt-free, along with a drastic cut in existing student debt.
By 2021, her scheme will include no college tuition for people whose households have an income of under $85,000, with no in-state tuition for households with incomes under $125,000. Community colleges wouldbe free for all.
The plan offersbenefits for aspiring entrepreneurs, who wouldbe able to defer their loans for three years, and social entrepreneurs, who would also be eligible for nearly $18,000 in loan forgiveness.
How much will this all cost? Just as Robin Hood would hope, the money will come from increasing taxes on high-income taxpayers and shutting loopholes.
Wondering how much college would costyou? Check out Clinton’scollege calculator heretofind out how much her scheme will save you on student loan debt.
2. Womens rights will have a huge proponent in the White House.
Hillary Clinton has been the most aggressive champion for women we’ve ever seen in a presidential nominee. Period.
Clinton is famous for declaring in a high-profile speech that womens rights are human rights. Defending women and children has been a priority for her ever since she graduated from statute school more than four decades ago.
Clinton wants to protect a womans right to choose, including safe, legal and affordable access to all methods of contraception.
She also plans on launching a comprehensive effort to end sexual assault on college campuses the kind of traumatic event that sticks with young women for the rest of their lives.
This issue is certainly among the mostsignificantcontrastsbetweenClinton and Trump. When Trump was asked what a woman should do if she wereharassed at work, he said she should just quit her job .Righttttttttt. That stance treats women’s rights as unworthy, and of course overlooks the fact that many women don’t have the luxury of simply finding another college or workplace when faced with adversity.
3. The surrounding wouldn’t be destroyed.
Climate change is a real issue. How anyone can still fight that simple fact is beyond me( and science ).
Butour generation knows that we have to take care of what we have so future generations have, ya know, a planet to inhabit. On this front, Clinton wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions up to 30 percent by 2025, something essential to combating climate change.
A Clinton administration would also prop up the US renewable energy sector by slashing petroleum consumption( throughcleaner ga development and more stringent energy efficiency standards) and installing 500 million solar panels by the end of her first term.
Because here’s the bottom line: Oil is a finite resource, and there will come a hour when we run out of it. Devoting resources to strengthening renewable energy the investigations and developing will not only forestall climate change, but also propel the US to the forefront of the global clean energy revolution.
4. Equal pay will be a national priority.
Let’s be blunt about this: It’s insane that women still earn only 79 pennies for every$ 1men take home. It attains no sense, especially when women are just as( if not more) educated than men.
In other terms, the pay gap needs to be closed immediately.
Of course, Donald Trump supposes the solution is for women to do just as good of a undertaking as humen. Um, I’m sorry, but last day I checked, we DO run just as hard as humen. In fact, wehave to work hard merely to prove we deserve a seat at the table.
Hillary’s stance on equal pay is a stark contrast.
While serving as a senator for New York, she introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act to close the pay gap between men and women. Though its not yet been passed, the bill remains a legislative priority for her, as does legislation designed to protect and expand paid family leave.
5. And last but CERTAINLY not least: FREE WiFi.
Ah yes, how happy we will be if( when) PresidentClintonmakes this happen.
In a Clinton-led America, 100 percentage of Americans will have access to affordable internet by 2020, with public places like mass transit equipped with yes free WiFi.
Free WiFi while you’reon the subway? Free WiFi while youre waiting to committee your plane at the airport? Check and check.
Never again will you be forced to pay for some slow, awful WiFi connection.
Now thats a change we can believe in.
PAID FOR BY WOMEN VOTE! WWW.WOMENVOTEPROJECT.ORG. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATES COMMITTEE. WOMEN VOTE! IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF THIS ADVERTISING .