Mediaboss Marketing

However, as many Americans noticed, on Friday as the Senate voted on whether to raise the federal minimum wage, one senator decided to make a little spectacle out of her vote.

Kyrsten Sinema gave a dramatic thumbs down moments after literally bringing a chocolate cake to the Senate (reportedly as a gift for the Senate staff who worked through the night to read the entire COVID-19 relief bill out loud). Among the eight members of the Democratic caucus who voted against raising the minimum wage, Sinema has by far the most constituents who are currently earning the minimum wage, which in Arizona is $11.

While Sinema didnt sink the bill alone, her antics made her a focal point of wrath from those on the progressive left.

Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib tweeted about the Sinema thumbs down, saying no one should ever be this happy to vote against uplifting people out of poverty.

But Tlaib probably knows a thing or two about Sinema, as everyone does in Washington these days. She has crafted herself to be one half of a pair of Democratic senators who seem to have the ability to derail the entire Democratic agenda in the next two years.

Yes, Democrats amazingly took majority control of the Senate by winning two seats in Georgia, but any bill still has to get a thumbs up from Sinema and Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

The thing is that while Manchin is politically forced to be a centrist given that he represents such a deeply Republican state, he actually is a centrist. He was centrist even in his earliest days in state house politics when Democrats ran everything in Charleston. During his time in the Senate, he has been a leader for centrist organizations, like No Labels.

In other words, he has always been this way.

Sinema, however, has not.

Sinema began her career in politics working in Ralph Naders Green Party. Her politics were so far to the left that she ran as an independent the first time she ran for state representative before later running as a Democrat and winning. Soon, she was in the Arizona state Senate, where she once said she was the most liberal member of the body, and that was probably true. She also led the fight against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in her state.

When she won a seat in Congress for 2013, she did so as a barrier breaker, becoming the first openly bisexual woman to ever serve. And guess what? It was a year later she tweeted that raising the minimum wage was a no brainer because, she argued, no one should work full time and live in poverty. This is the same argument advocates have made about the current minimum wage.

While there were some grumblings on the left about her bipartisan approach when she ran for Senate in 2018, she faced little opposition from Democrats for the open seat.

In 2020, however, Sinema came into her own nationally. She became known as the woman who wore colorful wigs on the staid Senate floor (since she wasnt getting her hair cut during the lockdown.) When she presided over the Senate wearing a shirt reading Dangerous Creature, Mitt Romney was overheard telling her that she was breaking the Internet.

To which, she replied, good.

As a human and not a politician, Sinema is deeply impressive. For a while, she grew up in an abandoned gas station, she graduated from college in two years, and holds an M.B.A., a law degree, and a Ph.D. doctorate in justice studies. She also competes in Ironman competitions and has qualified for the Boston Marathon.

But by going to the middle, her shift in ideology and outlook has disappointed liberals. Still, it may have been logical enough given that she is representing all of Arizona, which retains a strong conservative bent despite voters there recently electing Democrats.

Though, while Sinema was giving her thumbs down, Arizonas other Democratic Senator, Mark Kelly, did vote for the minimum wage increase. And, unlike Sinema, he is up for reelection next year.

James Pindell can be reached at james.pindell@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jamespindell.

Read the original:
The senator who is breaking the Internet (and liberal hearts) has a wild backstory - The Boston Globe

Both major political parties have been criticised for running online advertisements which direct users to websites to find out where they can vote early in the WA election, without disclosing their links to either site.

An ad for the website VoteWA.com.au appears as the first or second result under a number of Google searches, including "vote early Perth".

A similar ad for WhereCanIVote.org.au appears on some searches, including "vote early Liberal WA".

VoteWA.com.au is run by WA Labor and WhereCanIVote.org.au was setup by the Liberals.

In some cases, the websites appear above links to official pages run by the WA Electoral Commission (WAEC).

In both instances, it is not until users are on the websites that they are presented with a small disclosure at the bottom of the pages revealing the sites' owners.

Supplied

WhereCanIVote.org.au also contains the Liberal Party's logo as the site's icon.

It comes as a record number of Western Australians vote early, with the WAEC reporting yesterday that about one in five electors, or 343,796, had already cast their ballot.

VoteWA website

That is compared to the 214,242 people who voted early in the 2017 state election.

It is not suggested that either party is breaking WA's electoral laws or regulations.

Once on the VoteWA.com.au site, users are asked to enter their home address, which the site uses to display a page showing their nearest early voting centre and a photo of Mark McGowan with their electorate's Labor candidate.

Further down the page, alongside how to vote cards, are options for users to have "free directions" sent to their mobile phone or email address.

The politics, the policies and the people. We've collected all our coverage on the election campaign here.

Both require the user to enter their first and last names to receive the instructions.

A link to WA Labor's privacy policy, which was until last week only accessible from the site after entering an address, states any information provided to the party "will only be used for the purpose for which it was provided".

WA Labor did not directly answer questions from the ABC about how the website collected data, or about its failure to disclose the ownership of the site in Google ads.

"The VoteWA.com.au website is an easy way for people to access how to vote material for WA Labor candidates, and to find their nearest early voting centre," a party spokesperson said.

Similarly, the WhereCanIVote.org.au website asks users to enter their postcode, which it uses to display their Liberal candidate, as well as polling places open before and on election day.

There is also an option to download a how-to-vote card, which is the first time the Liberal Party logo clearly appears in any of the site's content.

Supplied

In response to questions from the ABC, a Liberal Party campaign spokesperson said the site did not track the postcodes entered by users.

"The website WhereCanIVote.org.au is provided as a service to electors to assist them in finding local polling places and Liberal candidates," they said.

"It is authorised in accordance with electoral laws."

The websites have raised the eyebrows of internet and political experts, who said their links to their respective parties should be made more clear.

Supplied

"These purport to show how-to-vote sites, which look like public utilities, but they're actually effectively advertising websites for the state political parties," professor of internet studies Tama Leaver said.

"It really wouldn't be difficult to make it clearer on either page that this is a website designed and run by a political party.

"I think it would do a great deal for peoples' trust in political parties if they were more upfront with what they were doing."

Mr Leaver said the situation was another example of why WA needed to better regulate internet advertising during elections.

ABC News: Gian De Poloni

"I think both parties are being as transparent as currently required by law and not a single step further," he said.

"We've got incredibly clear rules around when you can and can't advertise in print and on television, we've got quite clear rules about what you can and can't say and how much you need to disclose.

"Tightening up political advertising regulations so that it clearly applies online and clearly applies to social media would certainly make it a more transparent, and a more democratic system."

Political analyst Peter Kennedy agreed that while the websites appeared to comply with WA's Electoral Act, their affiliations could have been more obvious.

Google

He said the parties would not have created the websites unless they believed they could affect how individual voters might cast their ballot.

"They might be influenced by a party's how-to-vote card, or they could ignore it," he said.

"The political parties do it because they think their might be an advantage in it, and there may well be some political advantage.

"I don't think it would be a very marked advantage though."

Check out our quick 5-minute guide to what all the parties in the WA election actually stand for.

Data from Google reveals the WA Liberals have spent $33,450 on political advertising since the middle of November last year, making them the highest-spending organisation in the nation among those listed.

That accounts for more than half of the total amount spent on political advertising through Google and its other services, including YouTube, over that period.

Most of it has been spent on ads since February 7 around $20,000.

The WA Greens spent the second highest amount, forking out $23,700 for their ads.

WA Labor does not appear in the data.

See the article here:
Labor and Liberal parties criticised for running WA election online ads without disclosing links - ABC News

One of the only surviving Liberal members admits he knew from the middle of last year the party would be in serious trouble when WA voters went to the polls.

At this stage the party has only secured two seats in the lower house, and might retain a third.

Member for Cottesloe David Honey told 6PRs Liam Bartlett he conducted his own polling last June.

I knew this was a tough election, the toughest election we will ever have faced, he said.

I knew from the middle of last year that we were in the most serious trouble.

He also admitted the partys green energy policy received mixed feedback.

There was a campaign committee, that campaign committee decided what the policies were, he said.

There is no doubt whatsoever that renewables are the future for a new industry in the state.

In terms of going for a hard stop on collie, it was my personal view that, that was not a politically wise move to do.

Mr Honey said once counting is complete the party will meet to decide on a leader between him and Member for Vasse Libby Mettam.

He said discussions will also be conducted with the National party to form a coalition party.

Whatever happens we will be working hand in hand to keep the government to account.

Nationals Leader Mia Davies also wouldnt speculate on whether the party will bail out the Liberals and form a coalition, until all votes are counted.

We need to make sure we know who is sitting in each party room before we make decisions like that, she said.

But both of us are very clear on the fact that we need to find a way to hold the government to account.

Click play to hear the full interviews.

More:
David Honey admits Liberal party was in 'serious trouble' last year - 6PR

Californias in tough shape: Weve got our own dangerous virus variant, homelessness appears uncontrollable, and the governor may soon face a recall election.

That can only mean one thing: time for establishment media to once again declare the death of The California Dream.

Its happened every downturn since the end of the Gold Rush, but these new eulogies have a fresh twist: The dream this time has apparently been ruined by an excess of liberalism. Big government projects and over-regulation are to blame for the shattering of an illusion.

Without question, California sometimes suffers vertigo from tilting too far left; the San Francisco Board of Educations crusade to rename schools is one handy example. Small business owners here can rattle off a long list of frustrations about government micro-management.

But this is also a state where voters last November overwhelming rejected progressive ballot measures to end bail, restore affirmative action, strengthen rent control, and hike taxes on commercial property.

Rather than liberalism, California is the victim of something quite different: high tech and the rough economic beast it calls creative destruction. A generation ago, Silicon Valley was heralded as the states salvation, but has instead constructed a winner-take-all world of the super-rich serviced by gig workers who face anxiety and uncertainty with every sunrise.

When most East Coast-based media speak of the California Dream, they really have one particular era in mind: the post-World War II boom. Between 1940 and 1950, the states population grew by 53 percent; from 1950 to 1960, another 49 percent.

Families moved here not just because of the Beach Boys; they were drawn by an explosion of Cold War jobs in aerospace and other defense industries. FHA loans and the GI Bill enabled those workers to build homes, buy cars, and send their kids to well-run public schools.

But when the Berlin Wall collapsed, so did that defense-based economy. By the early 1990s, more than 200,000 industrial jobs were lost in Southern California alone. Rep. Julian Dixon (D-Calif) told the Washington Post, The truth is we were not prepared for peace in the world.

Years of anger and despair followed: high unemployment, gang violence, and riots. Mother Nature didnt help: earthquakes, fires and floods ravaged wide sections of the state. California in the 90s felt like it was going through a nervous breakdown.

But, amid all this, green shoots appeared south of San Francisco, in Silicon Valley. Computer engineers and technology innovators there envisioned a brave new world of unlimited access to information, instant connection across the globe, and bold choices for workers and industry.

Dreams of a second post-war-style boom blossomed.

Three decades later, changes in our everyday lives are significant from online banking to iPhones. But the working world Big Tech has created is very different from the broad prosperity shared by defense and aerospace working families. A relative handful of people have made a lot of money the kind of money not even Gold Rush barons could dream of. And then theres everybody else.

By the end of 2018, for example, wages were actually down even in Silicon Valley for everyone outside the top ten percent. Those decreases were driven in part by outsourcing and by the downward wage pressure of a low-paid gig economy created by the likes of Uber, Doordash, Task Rabbit, and Instacart.

At the same time, high techs steady stream of newly-minted millionaires and billionaires helped drive up property values throughout the state contributing substantially to Californias always-difficult homeless problem. It got so bad in Silicon Valley that the San Jose school district came up with a plan to turn unused schools into housing for teachers who otherwise couldnt afford to live anywhere near their students.

Several California born-and-bred technology companies are now predictably moving out of the state, escaping the uncomfortable issues they helped create. Oracle and Hewlett-Packard are heading for Texas, others to Florida places where workers can actually buy a house and where corporations can dream of what a Hewlett-Packard spokesperson termed opportunities for long-term cost savings.

Yes, the California Dream is having a fragile moment. To find the biggest culprit, dont point at liberalism. Media should instead examine an industry that began with real promise but soon evolved into a brutal form of creative destruction. That disruption has compelled too many descendants of Cold War workers to make ends meet by standing in line or running up and down supermarket aisles, so better-off people dont have to.

Years ago, Facebooks Mark ZuckerbergMark Elliot ZuckerbergFacebook touts benefits of personalized ads in new campaign Mellman: White working-class politics Hillicon Valley: Companies urge action at SolarWinds hearing | Facebook lifts Australian news ban | Biden to take action against Russia in 'weeks' MORE adopted a motto for his then-rapidly-growing start-up words that were soon embraced by others as a high tech creed: Move fast and break things.

Thats just whats been done to many dreams, California and otherwise.

Joe Ferullo is an award-winning media executive, producer and journalist and former executive vice president of programming for CBS Television Distribution. He was a news executive for NBC, a writer-producer for Dateline NBC, and worked for ABC News. Follow him on Twitter@ironworker1.

Continue reading here:
Who killed the California Dream? If you think it was liberals, think again | TheHill - The Hill

Are conservatives more afraid of threats than liberals? Political psychologists have long found evidence that people on the right are more sensitive to scary stuff, on average, than people on the left, a basic psychological difference thought to drive some political disagreements between the two groups.

But new research suggests that's overly simplistic.

In a new international study, conservatives and liberals both responded to threats but they responded more strongly to different kinds of threats. And to make matters more complex, those responses don't always map nicely onto the political divide, or stay consistent from nation to nation.

Related: Why did the Democratic and Republican parties switch platforms?

"This link between threat and conservative beliefs, or conservative ideology, is just not simple," said study leader Mark Brandt, a psychology professor at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. "It depends on a lot of different things. It depends on the type of threats that we study; it depends on how we measure political beliefs and what kind of political beliefs that we measure; and it depends on the precise country that we're looking at."

Let's rewind to 2012, well before the 2016 election and the dramatic political fallout that's happened since. That year, psychologists reported that conservatives responded more strongly to scary images than liberals did on a basic biological level: They literally started sweating more. This tracked with earlier research suggesting that conservatives were more prone to disgust, on average, than liberals. Multiple studies reached similar conclusions.

It made for a neat story. People physiologically prone to fear and disgust would pay more attention to threats and thus turn to a conservative political ideology that promises safety and the status quo. But there was a lingering problem. Seventy-five percent of the research cited on the topic in one influential 2003 meta-analysis was done in the United States, and only 4% was conducted outside of Western democracies. Another problem? The definition of "threat" in most studies on the topic was usually narrow, focused on threats of violence or terrorism. Political persuasion was often defined narrowly too, without accounting for differences between social ideology and economic ideology.

"Many of the studies cited in support of this conclusion use threat measures or manipulations that exclusively tap threats emphasized by conservative elites," said Ariel Malka, a political psychologist at Yeshiva University who was not involved in the new study, referring to politicians and media figures.

This is a problem because the link between threats and politics can run both ways. For example, a recent POLITICO poll found that 70% of Republicans thought the 2020 election was marred by fraud, compared with only 10% of Democrats. Before the election, only 35% of Republicans thought the election would be fraudulent, and 52% of Democrats did. The post-election shift makes it pretty clear that people's fears of fraud are driven by party affiliation and messaging from party elites, not the other way around. If studies on threats focus on fears usually emphasized by conservatives, they're likely to find a connection between threat and conservatism.

Brandt and his colleagues wanted to broaden the scope. They turned to a dataset called the World Values Survey, which asked people from 56 different countries and territories about their perceptions of six different categories of threats, including war, violence, police violence, economics, poverty and government surveillance. Economic threats were broad-based worries about the job market and availability of education; poverty threats were more personal concerns about being able to put food on the table or pay for medical care. The survey also captured people's political beliefs in nuanced ways, ranging from whether they called themselves conservative or liberal to their individual opinions on immigration, government ownership of industry and abortion. Data on 60,378 participants was collected between 2010 and 2014.

The results were messy.

Economic fears were slightly associated with some left-wing beliefs, but not all. For example, a fear of personal poverty was linked with more acceptance of government ownership of industry, but fears about the wider economy weren't. The fear of war or terrorism was sometimes associated with right-wing beliefs, but reporting worries about violence within one's neighborhood was associated with left-wing beliefs, as was fear of police violence.

Related: How to actually stop police brutality, according to science

And there were many unexpected findings. The threat of war or terrorism was linked to left-wing beliefs on government ownership, for example, and economic worries were linked to left-wing beliefs on social issues. The threat of personal poverty was associated with right-wing views on social issues and on protectionist job policies that would reserve the highest-paid jobs for men and non-immigrants. What was clear was that threats and right-wing beliefs weren't married. There were six statistically significant associations between certain threats and conservative beliefs, nine associations between other threats and liberal beliefs, and 15 potential relationships between threat and belief that didn't turn out to correlate at all.

Making matters more complicated, the relationships between ideology and threats weren't consistent from nation to nation. For example a fear of war or terrorism was associated with left-wing beliefs in Kazakhstan just as strongly as a fear of war or terrorism was associated with right-wing beliefs in the United States. Likewise, Brandt told Live Science, experiencing the threat of poverty leads to left-wing beliefs in the U.S., but in Pakistan and Egypt, the threat of poverty is linked to right-wing belief.

If you look only at the United States, the researchers report, it's true that right-wing beliefs and a fear of war or terrorism go hand-in-hand. But expanding to other threats shows an inconsistent mix of associations. In other words, even in the U.S., conservatism and a physical sensitivity to threats aren't clearly linked.

It's not clear from the study which comes first, the political belief or the focus on a threat. It's possible that experiencing a particular threat moves people to adopt a certain political belief, but it's also possible, as with voter fraud in the 2020 election, that people adopt a political identity first and focus on specific threats as a result.

The new work is likely to be influential, said Bert Bakker, a political scientist at the University of Amsterdam who studies the relationship of personality and political ideology. Bakker was not involved in the current study, but his work has shown that the difference in disgust between conservatives and liberals may also be overstated.

"I am less certain about what we know about this now than I was a couple years ago," Bakker told Live Science.

It's still possible that people gravitate toward political beliefs for deep-seated psychological reasons, Brandt said.

"It's definitely plausible that people experience some threat or some event and then adopt this attitude," he said. "But what 'this attitude' is and the best one to address that threat might be different depending on the particular context."

There may also be other psychological reasons to associate with a political group, Malka noted. People have a social need to fit in, and may adopt attitudes that help them do so. Future research should focus more on how pre-existing political affiliation leads people to focus on different threats, he told Live Science.

Originally published on Live Science.

Continue reading here:
Conservatives aren't more fearful than liberals, study finds - Livescience.com