Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

A newly released poll shows the populist power of Donald Trump

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com


By Michael Tesler January 27

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally last month in Mesa, Ariz. (Ross D. Franklin/AP)
Commentators have argued for months that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has the potential to unite white Americans’ ethnic and economic anxieties into a powerful populist coalition.
For example, Lee Drutman noted that ethnically conservative and economically progressive populists who want increased spending on Social Security and a decrease in immigration vastly outnumber political conservatives and business Republicans. “So when Trump speaks out both against immigration and against fellow Republicans who want to cut Social Security,” Drutman wrote, “he’s speaking out for a lot of people.”
New data show just how successful Trump has been. The data come from the RAND Corp.’s Presidential Election Panel Survey (PEPS), a collaborative project between RAND and the political scientists John Sides, Lynn Vavreck and myself. In the first of six PEPS surveys, a nationally representative sample of more than 3,000 respondents was interviewed in late December and early January (more details here). The initial survey results were released Wednesday.
Campaign 2016  Email Updates
Get the best analysis of the presidential race.
Sign up
Particularly important in this survey is its detailed measurement of attitudes toward racial and ethnic groups, as well as economic liberalism.
The PEPS follows prior research and measures resentment toward African Americans and immigrants with statements like “blacks could be just as well off as whites if they only tried harder” and “it bothers me when I come in contact with immigrants who speak little or no English.” It also contains a measure of ethnocentrism developed by Donald Kinder and Cindy Kam, which compares how favorably respondents rated whites to how favorably they rated minority groups.
Finally, the PEPS included questions about taxes, the minimum wage, government health care, big business and labor unions — which together form a reliable measure of economic liberalism.
Most striking is how each of these measures strongly correlates with support for Trump. The graph below shows that Trump performs best among Americans who express more resentment toward African Americans and immigrants and who tend to evaluate whites more favorably than minority groups.

Graph by Michael Tesler
Moreover, statistical models show that each of these three attitudes about minorities contributes independently to Trump’s vote share.  So much so, in fact, that GOP primary voters who score in the top 25 percent of their party on all three measures are 44 points more likely to support Donald Trump than those who score in the bottom 25 percent.
On economic issues, Trump separates himself even more from his closest competitor in the PEPS survey, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.).  The graph below shows that Cruz outperforms Trump by about 15 percentage points among the most economically conservative Republicans. But Cruz loses to Trump by over 30 points among the quarter of Republicans who hold progressive positions on health care, taxes, the minimum wage and unions.
Graph by Michael Tesler
It appears from the PEPS data, then, that the Trump coalition unites resentment of minority groups with support for economically progressive policies.
That is also the takeaway from a collection of 19 surveys that have been conducted byYouGov every week or every other week between June 13 and Jan. 19.  Each of those surveys asked its respondents to rate how important the issues of immigration and Social Security were to them.
The graph below shows that Trump’s support throughout the past several months has been particularly strong among Republicans who think that both immigration and Social Security are “very important.” GOP voters who prioritize both issues are now about 40 points more likely to support Trump than Republicans who did not prioritize either.
Graph by Michael Tesler
These findings dovetail with multiple publicopinion polls showing that Trump performs best among anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim Republicans. Doug Ahler and David Broockman have also shown that Trump is particularly popular with Republicans who have conservative positions on immigration and liberal positions on taxes.
These findings also support the idea thatTrump’s appeal mirrors Nixonian populism’s blend of racial conservatism with tacit support for the welfare state — a blend often seen in Europe’s right-wing populist parties as well as the presidentialbid of George Wallace.
Of course, Trump does not always take liberal positions on economic issues.  He opposes raising the minimum wage and has proposed a massive tax cut on high incomes. Yet Trump has repeatedly bucked conservative orthodoxy on such issues as protecting Social Security and Medicare, campaign finance reform, governmental health insurance, infrastructure spending and free trade.
Nevertheless, economically progressive positions, combined with Trump’s harsh rhetoric about minority groups, seem to have created a powerful populist coalition that has made Trump the front-runner heading into the Iowa caucuses.
Michael Tesler is assistant professor of political science at UC Irvine, co-author of “Obama’s Race,” and author of the forthcoming, “Post-Racial or Most-Racial? Race and Politics in the Obama Era

Monday, February 15, 2016

Antonin Scalia’s Death Could Mark End of Constitution


Getty
Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com

by Ben Shapiro 13 Feb 2016
The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn’t merely mark a tragedy for Constitutional philosophy – it may mark the death of American Constitutionalism as a whole.
Scalia’s philosophy of jurisprudence is well-known and shaped two generations of conservative thinkers: the Constitution ought to be interpreted according to its original meaning. This shouldn’t have been a groundbreaking notion given that most legislation is interpreted according to those rules, but because leftist jurists have spent a century chiseling away at the meaning of the Constitution based on their personal political beliefs, Scalia’s reinvigoration of traditional interpretive methodologies made him a historic figure. Scalia’s brilliant, passionate writing style made him author of some of the most famous dissents in Supreme Court history, and channeled the modern conservative frustration with the continuing abandonment of the Constitution.
Scalia’s jurisprudence also reminded conservatives that there is no substitute for proven Constitutional originalism. Most conservatives ignored that when they greenlit the appointment of cipher John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a point I made when he was appointed. But Scalia provided a consistent reminder that Constitutional philosophy matters. It isn’t just a game of doing whatever you want politically. Constitutional jurisprudence is about recognizing the limits of the federal government – and recognizing the limits of the politicization of the Court itself.
In the end, Scalia’s death could mark the end of the Constitution itself. That’s because the current Supreme Court rested, until Scalia’s death, on the vague, confused, indeterminate philosophy of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who apparently decides cases on the basis of whether he has a solid bowel movement that morning. That means that half the time, the Constitution has a shot, as in Citizens United; the other half of the time, the Constitution drains away into the mists of Kennedy’s magical social justice thinking, as in Obergefell.
Unlike Kennedy, Scalia represented a consistent vote for a Constitution beyond modern progressive power politics. But with his death, President Obama now has the power to appoint a fifth justice to join hard-left social engineers Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If the Republican Senate allows President Obama to select Scalia’s successor, the left will have a complete monopoly on the Supreme Court. Within the next few years, Citizens United will be overturned, restoring limits on free speech; the Supreme Court will render the Second Amendment meaningless by reinterpreting the right to bear arms as a non-personal right; freedom of religion will be made subservient to same-sex marriage and abortion priorities; the death penalty will be ruled unconstitutional; unions will be allowed to continue confiscating the dollars of people who disagree with them politically; redistricting along leftist lines will return. Scalia ensured that the Supreme Court wasn’t a transformative institution; now it will become the chief tool in the left’s arsenal.
It’s a sad commentary on the state of conservative politics that the only thing standing between the United States and the death of its founding document was a brilliant 79-year-old jurist. But unless Republicans stand up on their hind legs now, that will certainly be the case.
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book,The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.
Read More Stories About: