Mediaboss Marketing

Just 74 percent of white Obama voters with a high school diploma or less backed Mrs. Clinton in the voter study group cited by Mr. Milbank.

Similarly, the Cooperative Congressional Election Study found that Mrs. Clinton won just 78 percent of white Obama voters without a bachelors degree. The figure was even lower in the key Rust Belt battlegrounds.

A separate analysis from the voter study group found that many of these voters are Republicans whom the Democrats cant win back. That question whether the Democrats can lure these Obama voters back is the important one.

The data from these surveys sends a mixed message. Strong evidence suggests a lot of these voters will lean Republican for the foreseeable future, and certainly will lean toward Mr. Trump. But Democrats can still win a meaningful and potentially decisive share of these voters, many of whom probably voted Democratic down-ballot in 2016.

Heres what one survey, the C.C.E.S., says about these voters:

THEY HAD SOURED ON MR. OBAMA Just 29 percent of white, no-college Obama-Trump voters approved of his performance, and 69 percent disapproved. Similarly, 75 percent said they would repeal the Affordable Care Act. Only 15 percent believed the economy had improved over the last year, and just 23 percent said their income had increased over the last four years.

THEY LARGELY BACK THE TRUMP AGENDA The Obama-Trump voters generally support Mr. Trumps key campaign pledges on immigration, police, infrastructure spending, trade and the environment. This isnt too surprising: Surveys conducted long before the 2016 election showed that a large share of white working-class Democratic-leaning voters backed the conservative-populist position on these issues.

THEYRE NOT NECESSARILY RELUCTANT TRUMP VOTERS Among those who voted in the 2016 primary (65 percent of the Obama-Trump vote), 54 percent of Obama-Trump voters reported backing Mr. Trump in the Republican presidential primary, according to the C.C.E.S., a sign that many of them are pretty strong and consistent supporters of Mr. Trump. Only 9 percent supported another Republican, less than the share that supported Mrs. Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Taken together, the data indicates that Mr. Trump had considerable and possibly unique appeal to an important slice of Democratic-leaning voters. Mr. Trump adopted a platform tailored to white working-class Democrats. In doing so, he neutralized many traditional Democratic lines of attack against typical Republicans like Mitt Romney. Many of these voters backed him in the primary and seemed to prefer his brand of populism, suggesting they probably would have backed Mr. Trump no matter which Democrat he faced.

MANY NOW CONSIDER THEMSELVES REPUBLICAN-LEANERS A Pew Research Center panel study found that fully 18 percent of white working-class voters who leaned Democratic as late as December 2015 reported leaning Republican by December 2016. That timing is significant: It implies that these voters continued to tilt toward the Democrats all the way until the 2016 campaign.

Similarly, the C.C.E.S. found that 45 percent of Obama-Trump voters identified as Republican-leaners in their postelection study.

The voters who both voted for Mr. Trump and say they lean Republican have probably taken a big step toward becoming consistent Republican voters. They seem relatively difficult for Democrats to lure back.

RACIAL RESENTMENT WAS A BIG FACTOR Using this and other data, political scientists have argued that racial resentment is the strongest predictor of whether voters flipped from Mr. Obama to Mr. Trump, and the biggest driver of Trump support among these voters.

Yes, racial resentment is the strongest predictor of the Obama-Trump vote in this survey data. White, working-class Obama voters with racially conservative views were very likely to flip to the Republicans. For example, Mrs. Clinton won just 47 percent of white Obama voters without a college degree who disagreed with the idea that white people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin. In contrast, she retained 88 percent of white Obama voters without a college degree who agreed that white people have certain advantages.

Nonetheless, voters with high racial resentment did not necessarily represent the preponderance of the Obama-Trump vote, because Mr. Obama had already lost nearly all such voters by 2012. To take the prior example: 49 percent of white, no-college Obama-Trump supporters at least somewhat disagreed with the notion that white people had certain advantages.

MANY REMAIN PERSUADABLE The C.C.E.S. found that 26 percent of Obama-Trump voters identified as Democrats in their postelection study, while 35 percent were Republicans and 37 percent were independents. Including those independents who lean toward a party, Republicans led by a wider margin of 45 percent to 30 percent. Even so, thats a significant share who continue to identify with the Democratic Party despite voting for Mr. Trump.

Democrats were probably still winning a lot of these voters in 2016. The results speak for themselves to some extent. Jason Kander lost his Senate race in Missouri by just three percentage points, even as Mrs. Clinton lost by 20 points. Even Democrats who didnt run ahead of Mrs. Clinton over all like Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin or Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania nonetheless ran far ahead of Mrs. Clinton in traditionally Democratic, white working-class areas.

Mrs. Duckworths performance is probably the most telling. She won Illinoiss 12th Congressional District a downstate, working-class district now held by Republican Mike Bost by nine points. Mr. Trump won it by 12 points.

Mr. Bost might seem like a fairly safe Republican for re-election, if you judge the partisanship of his district strictly by his partys performance in the last presidential election. He certainly would be safe if Democrats wrote off Obama-Trump voters. But the willingness of these voters to support a Democrat for federal office against an incumbent Republican in a fairly decent year for Republicans suggests that at least these Obama-Trump voters remain in play, and Mr. Bost is more vulnerable than it might initially seem.

More generally, there is reason to think these voters are likelier to vote for a Democrat against a more traditional Republican who hasnt developed a message to match Mr. Trumps appeal to white working-class Democrats. These voters, for instance, tend to support abortion rights and same-sex marriage. They support a higher minimum wage.

All considered, it does seem likely that at least a portion of the Obama-Trump vote can be lured back to the Democrats especially against traditional Republican candidates who emphasize small government, free markets and social conservatism.

Whether that means it should be the crux of the Democrats path to power is another question. But it will most likely be a part of it, and will probably need to be for Democrats to secure parts of the Rust Belt that continue to play an outsize role in American elections.

More here:
The Obama-Trump Voters Are Real. Here's What They Think. - The ... - New York Times

The Trump administrations decision to overturn this is a disaster for taxpayers and the environment, said Eli Lehrer, president of the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank in Washington. He described the Obama order as a common-sense measure to prevent taxpayer dollars from being sunk into projects threatened by flooding.

The rule gave federal agencies three options to flood-proof new infrastructure projects. They could use the best available climate change science; they could require that standard projects like roads and railways be built two feet above the national 100-year flood elevation standard and critical buildings like hospitals be built three feet higher; or they could require infrastructure be built to at least the 500-year floodplain. The order did not regulate private development.

In announcing the standards, the Obama administration cited a National Climate Assessment finding that more than $1 trillion worth of property and structures in the United States are at risk of inundation if sea levels rise two feet above current levels, something that scientists believe could happen by 2050.

A White House official said that Mr. Trumps executive order would reinstate the prior flood management standard, issued by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, but that it would not prohibit state and local agencies from using more stringent standards if they chose.

Mr. Trump was expected to participate in a discussion on infrastructure on Tuesday and make an announcement at 3:45 p.m.

The administrations 2018 budget request called for $200 billion in direct federal spending on infrastructure aimed at generating $1 trillion in private-sector investment to build and strengthen roads, bridges and other projects.

Antarcticas potential collapse could damage coastal cities across the globe.

Representative Ralph Abraham of Louisiana, a Republican who sponsored legislation that would have blocked Mr. Obamas flood standard, said he was thrilled by Mr. Trumps decision. He acknowledged that Louisiana was inundated with catastrophic flooding last year, but called it an isolated event. The bigger threat, he said, is from costly regulations.

He estimated the standards would have increased the cost of a new home by 25 to 30 percent because most of the state would be put in a federal floodplain.

We had more than our share of tragedy down here with the water, but we already have problems meeting requirements, Mr. Abraham said. The new plan would make it so costly for my Louisiana residents.

The Obama administration had estimated the more stringent standards would increase construction costs between 0.25 and 1.25 percent, but save taxpayers money in the long run.

Representative Carlos Curbelo, a Republican of Florida who has called for addressing the threat posed by climate change, criticized Mr. Trumps decision.

When youre on the front lines like South Florida, we know the importance of having more resilient building codes to protect our infrastructure, especially when taxpayer dollars are used, he said in a statement. This Executive Order is not fiscally conservative. Its irresponsible and it will lead to taxpayer dollars being wasted on projects that may not be built to endure the flooding we are already seeing and know is only going to get worse.

See the article here:
Trump to Roll Back Obama's Flood Standards for Infrastructure - New York Times

The Justice Department will take on affirmative action, according to a report in the New York Times. Buzz60

Happier Times: Since assuming office, President Trump has been dismantling Barack Obama's legacy -- in court.(Photo: Pool, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON From affirmative action and immigration to voting rights and LGBT protections, the Trump administration is switching sides in some of the nation's most consequential legal battles.

The rapid-fire reversals of Obama administration policies and legal positions throws the weight of the U.S. government from one side to the other in a number of hotly contested court battles, including several headed toward the Supreme Court.

In the space of 12 days recently, the Justice Department saidcivil rightslaws do not protect gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination andvoting rights laws do not prevent states from cleansing registration rolls of non-voters. In between, it indicated it may fight, rather than defend, affirmative action policies at colleges and universities.

That followed similar about-faces in some of the biggest legal battles waged by President Barack Obama to defend his signature immigration, health care and climate change initiatives. Trump also has flipped the government's position in lesser-known court fights over workers' rights, women's rights and transgender rights.

"Many of these changes are not just changes in policy, but theyre actually reversing the U.S.government'sofficial position on what statutes mean," says David Cole, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union."What a statute means ought not change from one administration to another. The law is the law.

Read more:

'SEE YOU IN COURT:' Trump's vow proves prophetic

Trumps Justice Department reverses Obama's stance on Ohios voter purge

Trump's immigration stance fuels opposition with millions in donations and volunteers

Policy changes at the start of a new administration are nothing new, particularly when the White House changes hands politically. What appears to be different nowis the volume of change, the number of ongoing court battlesand the mandate Trump claimedto dismantlethe key achievements of his predecessor.

In some cases, the new administration is threatening to take its policy reversals even further through court action:

On immigration, the Department of Homeland Security in June ended Obama's program to protect from deportationmillions of undocumented immigrants whose children are citizens or permanent residents. Now, faced with legal action by Texas and other states, it is considering ending the five-year-old program that has protected 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States as children.

On health care, the administration is mulling whether to drop itsappeal of a lower court decisionstriking down a provision of Obama's Affordable Care Act that pays insurers to keep costs down for low-income participants. Without the reimbursements, insurance premiums could skyrocket. A coalition of Democratic attorneys general is preparing take over the appeal if necessary.

On climate change, the government has played a similar waiting game, getting the same appeals court to delay ruling on Obama's landmark Clean Power Plan, which cuts greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. That keeps the policy, which has been on hold for 18 months, from taking effect.

In the climate change and other environmental lawsuits, their first course of conduct has been to try to get the courts off their back," says David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

President Trump's legal assault on Obama administration policies includes voting rights cases.(Photo: Marcio Jose Sanchez, AP)

The latest example of Trump reversing Obama in court came in a voting rights case to be heard by the Supreme Court this fall. The justices will rule on Ohio's challengeto a federal appeals court ruling that struck down itsmethod ofpurging voters from registration rolls based on inactivity.

Obama's Justice Department last year urged the appeals court to rule against Ohio because its method of culling voter registration rolls "triggers the removal process without reliable evidence that a voter has movedand ... inevitably leads to the removal of voters based on failure to vote."

But this month, Trump's Justice Department intervened on Ohio's side, asserting that Ohio "does not remove registrants solely for their initial failure to vote" but only if they fail to answer a notice and continue to miss federal elections.

The Ohio reversal follows the Trump administration's decision to reverse its predecessor's position againstTexas' tough photo identification requirements. A federal judge found that the law was intended to discriminate against minorities, but in February the Justice Department dropped that claim, and last month it said a revised law no longer harmed minorities at all.

On voting rights and other issues, "this is the most aggressive set of changes we've seen," says Paul Smith, vice president of the Campaign Legal Center and a frequent Supreme Court litigatorwho specializes in defending voters' rights.

Before the Ohio case is heard, the Supreme Court will open its 2017 term in October with a major case about workers' rights to file class action lawsuitsrather than being forced to resolve disputes through arbitration.

Obama's Justice Department defended the National Labor Relations Board's determination that forced arbitration is an unfair labor practice. The Trump administration switched sides in June, leaving the NLRB to represent itself in court.

And before long, the high court is likely to take on the threshold question of whether federal civil rights laws regarding discrimination in education and employment cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Federal appeals courts have split on the issue.

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, dominated by Obama's appointees, argued in May that gays and lesbians should be covered under the laws. But the Justice Department last month said the opposite.

Supporters of the DACA program that protects immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children rally in New Mexico last month.(Photo: Roberto E. Rosales, AP)

The immigration, health care and climate change battles could reach tipping points in the next few weeks.

Texas and other states opposed to Obama's immigration policies have given the Trump administration until Sept. 5 to make its next move on the program affecting immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.

A group of immigration law scholars and professors wrote to Trump Monday, urging that he keep the program intact despite the chance it would be thrown out in court.

"The legal authority for the executive branch to operate DACA 2012 is crystal clear," they said. "As such, choices about its future would constitute a policy and political decision, not a legal one."

A decision is imminent this month on the Obamacare lawsuit. While the administration has maintained insurance companyreimbursements for the time being, Trump has talked brazenly about letting the program fail and has criticized Senate Republicans for not repealing it.

"This is an essential component of the political battle thats taking place between the Democrats and the president," says Ron Pollack, the founder of the health care advocacy group Families USA.

On affirmative action, the Trump administration has yet to announce any new policy or legal action. But while the Obama administration sided with the University of Texas in its successful defense ofracial preferences, Trump's Justice Department recently asked lawyers to investigate complaints that Harvard University's affirmative action programhelps blacks, Hispanics and even white students over Asian Americans.

"This administration seems to be much more willing to let politics override legal judgments in the positions they take in court," the ACLU's Cole says. "In the long term, that's likely to make their views less influential."

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2w7pjc8

More here:
President Trump is trying to reverse Obama's legacy through legal battles - USA TODAY

Former president Barack Obama wowed the crowd at a Chance the Rapper concert in Chicago on Saturday night during a surprise video guest appearance, sharing inspirational words about the next generation of leaders and applaudingthe young rapper for his support of the citys youth.

The free concert followed the Bud Billiken Parade, the countrys oldest and biggest African American parade and an annual back-to-school tradition in Chicago since 1929. Chance, who served as grand marshal of the parade,surprised fans by handing out tickets to his Saturday night show at Chicagos Auditorium Theatre.

Appearing on a massive screen onstage, Obama congratulated Chance for his role in the parade and his longtime support of Chicagoschildren. The Grammy Award winner donated $1 million to Chicago Public Schools earlier this year, and his localcharity, SocialWorks, handed out 30,000 backpacks filled with school supplies to students at Saturdays parade, according to the Chicago Tribune.

[Chance the Rapper chips in $1 million to help Chicago public schools funding crisis]

We want to make sure our kids are safe. We want to make sure that they are ready for going back to school. We want to make sure that we are nurturing and protecting and encouraging and loving the next generation of leaders all throughout the city of Chicago, Obama said in his recorded message, his words occasionally drowned out by cheers and whistles. So Chance, I am grateful for everything you have done on behalf of our young people back home. You are representing the kind of young people who come out of Chicago and change the world.

[Michelle Obama surprises Chance the Rapper with a tribute at BET Awards]

It wasnt the first time a member of the Obama family has showered praise on the 24-year-old musician: When Chance won the Humanitarian Award at the BET Awards in June, Michelle Obama surprised him with a special video tribute, calling him an outstanding role model.

The rest is here:
Obama praises Chance the Rapper during a surprise appearance at Chicago concert - Washington Post

President Donald Trumps many-sided response to the weekends white-supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Virginiaincluding the lethal car-ramming of anti-Nazi protesters by a 20-year-old Adolf Hitler admirerpredictably prompted a paroxysm of rationalization by the folks at Fox & Friends.

On Monday mornings show, regular cohost Steve Doocy, along with weekend hosts Abby Huntsman and Pete Hegseth (subbing for the vacationing Ainsley Earhardt and Brian Kilmeade), twisted themselves and the facts into a tangled mess in order to the blame Democrats and the media for the widespread criticism being heaped upon Trump.

Theres been a lot of outrageDemocrats, media, Huntsman declared, and held up the front page of a New York newspaper sporting the headline THE NAZI TRUMP WONT CALL OUT.

I was looking at the Daily News this morning, Huntsman said. I knew right away, when he didnt call it for what it wasa lot of people thought he should, many members of the Republican Party as wellI knew exactly the direction the media would take it, and the Democrats would take it. Because it fits right into the narrative many of them had the whole time hes been presidentthat he supports these types of groups.

No matter what, they were gonna say that, said Hegseth, who on Sundays installment of Fox & Friends had praised the president for not immediately picking a side out [of] the gate, and seemed to defend the white nationalists and neo-Nazis, some of them sporting swastika armbands, who had come to Charlottesville to protest the removal of a statue commemorating Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Justifying Trump on Monday, Hegseth claimed: I think the president nailed it... First he condemns in the strongest possible terms hatred and bigotry. He salutes the police. He talks about our country and how we should rally around it. And then yesterday he came outand the White House came outwith a very strongly and specifically worded statement.

That, to put it charitably, was an eccentric take on the presidents Saturday statement, in which he ad-libbed equal culpability (many sides, many sides) on both the neo-Nazis and their opponents for the violence, in which 32-year-old counterdemonstrator Heather Heyer was killed when James Alex Fields Jr. allegedly rammed an anti-Nazi crowd with his Dodge Challenger, tossing bodies in the air, and then fled the scene.

Meanwhile, the Sunday statement Hegseth praised came from an insistently anonymous White House spokesperson, not from President Trump.

In a blithe defense of the alt-right and neo-Nazi protesters who had showed up to support white nationalism, Hegseth had said Sunday that theres always a grievance underneath it that its worth talking about. And we should never live in such a politically correct culture that we cant at least have a conversation. Theres a reason those people were out there.

Meanwhile, in especially egregious instances of dishonest editing, the program first ran video of Vice President Mike Pence condemning white supremacists but excluded Pences trashing of the national media for spend[ing] more time criticizing the presidents words than they did criticizing those that perpetrated the violence to begin with.

Then, in a second instance of willful dishonesty, Fox & Friends played a clip of then-President Barack Obama speculating on the motives of a murderer who shot and killed five Dallas cops during a July 2016 Black Lives Matter protesthe noted that its dangerous to tar a whole movement with the evil act of a deranged individualwithout mentioning that he called the shootings a vicious, calculated, despicable attack on law enforcement.

He wasnt actually entirely wrong, but the grace given to him of course is never given to President Trump, Hegseth complained. And Huntsman drew an indefensible parallel from Obamas cautionary statement to the appropriate blame-fixing in Charlottesville.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

Unfortunately, that happens all too often today, right? she said. You have one individual and that then turns into speaking for a political party, speaking for a much bigger group, for a presidentthats when it gets very complicated and problematic.

Was Huntsman making the point that the white nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville were a much bigger group that shouldnt be held in any way accountable for the homicidal act of one of their supporters? It sure sounded like it.

See the rest here:
'Fox & Friends': Trump on Charlottesville Is Same as Obama Was on Dallas Attack - Daily Beast