Mediaboss Marketing

OPINION: Rather than worrying about Black men who may vote for Trump, progressives need to focus on turning out Black men and women in larger numbers.

At President Donald Trumps recent (and possibly COVID-19 infectious) in-person rally at the White House, Black supporters of Trump attempted to recruit significant numbers of African Americans for the audience.It is just one of other awkward attempts the Trump campaign has made to improve its racial optics.

Given the presidents history of racist rhetoric and conduct, however, polls do not reveal such tepid efforts are likely to convert any significant number of Black voters.

Read More: Why is the Trump campaign courting Black male voters?

Nonetheless, there has been recent anxious debate as to why 14% of Black men reported voting for Trump in 2016 given how narrowly Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost to Trump.

Rather than progressive candidates or campaigns wringing their hands about the likely small percentage of Black men who may vote for Trump in 2020, their focus should be upon turning out African American men and women in larger numbers period. As long-term voter turnout numbers reveal, Black men vote in greater numbers when Black women vote in greater numbers.

Treating the Black male voter problem in isolation is to ignore the fact that Black women are most often key organizers and mobilizers of the Black vote, including the votes of their brothers. Of course, there must be specific appeals targeted at the concerns and votes of Black men.

But scholars and activists of intersectionality warn us about the dangers of privileging the leadership and lives of Black men over those of Black women.

Read More: Megan Thee Stallion pens NY Times op-ed championing Black women: Were all we have

It is true that in 2016 there was a slight gender gap where greater numbers of Black men reported voting for and having more favorable views of Trump as compared to Black women (see the tables.) Still, pro-Trump Black women and men were a fraction of the Black vote; other than Black women, Black men were the least likely of all race-gender combinations to support Trump; and in general Black men and women held views that were small differences of degree and not in kind.

Story continues

Overwhelming majorities of African American women (80.1%) and Black men (71.1%) voted for Clinton for president or had favorable views of Clinton (78.2 % and 71.5%, respectively).

2016 CMPS: In the election of President, did you vote for

Black women

Black men

Difference

Hillary Clinton

80.1

71.1

9.0

Donald Trump

4.9

9.6

-4.7

2016 CMPS: Had favorable or somewhat favorable views of

Black women

Black men

Difference

Hillary Clinton

78.2

71.5

6.7

Donald Trump

10.2

17.3

-7.1

And it is unlikely that these slight differences can be explained by differences in ideology, given that roughly equal percentages of Black women and men ideologically identified as liberal (35.8% vs 36.26), moderate (37.1% vs. 39,6%), or conservative (15.3% vs 14.4%).No matter the labels, Black women are somewhat more likely than Black men to support left-leaning policy proposals such as universal healthcare or same-sex marriage.

While there is a presidential turnout gap between all race-gender combinations of women and men, the gap is most pronounced between Black women and men.In 1980, about 56% of Black women turned out to vote as compared to 51% of Black men.In 2016, while overall Black turnout declined to 59% (from 66% in 2012), the gap between Black women and men was 10% or 64% for the former as compared to 54% for the latter.

Read More: 6 states where low Black voter turnout helped Trump win in 2016

Simulations conducted by the Center for American Progress indicate that if Black turnout in 2016 matched that of 2012, African Americans could have been the critical margin of victory for Clinton in the critical Blue wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Thus, the reason why in 2020 a bevy of groups from the Black Male Voter Project to Amplify Action are attempting to increase Black turnout especially among Black men.

Of course, there are structural barriers that may very specifically and directly impact Black mens rates of voter participation from felony disenfranchisement to GOP-led purges of inconsistent voters.While Black women for various reasons may be enthused by the Democratic vice-presidential candidacy of Sen. Kamala Harris(D-CA), we do not know if her candidacy will have an Obama effect with Black men even though Harris has made pitches directed at Black men in battleground states like Michigan.

There is an array of issues that speak to Black mens interests including questions of economic and occupational inequalities. But we do not know if Black men will be drawn to the economic and health policy platforms of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

In the end, a multi-pronged approach that targets both Black women and men may be the most successful and progressive strategy.

Todd Shaw is an associate professor at the University of South Carolina, where he teaches political science and the African American studies.

The post How progressives should handle the Black male voter problem appeared first on TheGrio.

See original here:
How progressives should handle the Black male voter problem - Yahoo! Voices

Ed Broadbent and Brittany Andrew-Amofah: To 'build back better' Canada will need childcare, pharmacare, a green recoveryand new measures to sustain them

Ed Broadbent is the Chair of the Broadbent Institute. Brittany Andrew-Amofah is the Institutes Senior Policy & Research Analyst.

The recent Speech from the Throne made some significant federal commitments that could result in historic and positive changes in the lives of Canadians. Unless the upcoming budget includes concrete line items to make good on promises related to childcare, pharmacare, and other priorities, the optimism of progressives will be short-lived. As usual, its the details that will matter.

Given COVIDs grim impact on the economy and our lives, Canadians want to see ambition from their governments commensurate with the scale of the challenge at hand. Recent polling by the Broadbent Institute found that a majority of Canadians want a pandemic recovery that improves people lives and deals with climate change. Fifty-four per cent of Canadians want the government to implement bold new ideas, with nearly half of those respondents indicating an unwillingness to vote Liberal in the next election if the government fails to deliver. A lot is at stake.

Here are a few things that Canadians will be watching for in the upcoming budget:

The Throne Speech commitment to implementing a Canada-wide early learning and childcare system should be informed by Child Care Nows Affordable Child Care for ALL Plan. Phase 1 of the plan requires an initial investment of $2.5 billion in federal transfers to the provinces/territories and Indigenous communities to support the existing childcare sector. The governments promise to provide significant, long-term, sustained investment into an early learning and childcare system modelled after Quebecs system should bear in mind the importance of that provinces Educational Child Care Act, which enshrines the right for every child to have access to child care services.

As we approach the federal budget, a key indication that this policy will come to fruition nationally shouldnt just be funding investments or federal transfers, but also includes legislation that outlines the right to childcare.

The Throne Speech also indicated the governments plans to move forward on national, universal pharmacare. A recent Broadbent report noted that Canada is the only country with a single-payer health-care system that does not cover the costs of drugs in that system. The road-map to pharmacare has been clearly laid out by the Hoskins report, which called for an initial investment of $4.1 billion. The speech signaled the federal governments willingness to work with provinces and territories that are ready to move forward without delay on pharmacare. Given that the B.C. NDP has promised, in its platform, to lead the charge on the creation of national pharmacare, should the NDP win the current election the federal government should seek their cooperation in launching a national pharmacare program.

To build back better post-COVID, our efforts must be focused on transitioning towards a green economy and infrastructure program. The Task force for a Resilient Recovery, a project of the Ivey Foundation, outlined 5 bold moves for a green recovery, one that would reduce emissions, bolster electric power, protect our natural environment and see the creation of clean, competitive jobs. With a total investment of $55.4 billion over 5 years, this plan could provide the substance for the building back better slogan.

The creation of an early learning and childcare system, universal pharmacare and a green economic recovery, will require new progressive tax measures to implement and sustain them over time. A recent Broadbent Institute report laid out a pandemic fiscal plan to pay for an equal and just recovery. Included are key items such as a wealth tax, the closure of tax loopholes and cracking down on offshore tax havens. In light of COVID-19, an excess profits tax is also necessary to ensure that above-average company profits acquired throughout the pandemic should be used to benefit the public, rather than line the pockets of CEOs and shareholders.

The Throne Speech had some promising language. But the details of the upcoming budget are what really matter. As it constructs its fiscal plan, the Trudeau government should look to the policy suggestions noted above to provide a detailed and progressive approach to Canadas COVID recovery.

Here is the original post:
A progressive federal budget and how to pay for it - Maclean's

If you want to know what the United States would look like if progressives someday take over the federal government, just turn on your television set and watch the nightly chaos play out before your eyes in cities run by progressives.

Ted Wheeler, the mayor of Portland, is an interesting example of left-wing delusion. Every night for about two months, demonstrators have taken to the streets and run roughshod in the city while the police stand by and pretty much do nothing.

When President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump says he will ban TikTok from operating in the US Trump's 2019 financial disclosure reveals revenue at Mar-a-Lago, other major clubs Treasury to conduct policy review of tax-exempt status for universities after Trump tweets MORE sent in federal law enforcement officers to protect federal buildings, the mayor was incensed. Why? Because, he says, the federal presence is actually leading to more violence and more vandalism.

Lets see if we have this right: Federal law enforcement officers not the vandals are the problem. Federal agents are the ones figuratively pouring gasoline on fires that the rioters literally started with their own gasoline.

Nuts doesnt do justice to what passes for the mayors reasoning.

In New York City, police on the Brooklyn Bridge came under attack and were beaten bloody with sticks and clubs. In Chicago, protesters who wanted to topple a Christopher Columbus statue threw rocks, frozen water bottles, fireworks and other projectiles at police, leaving nearly 50 officers injured, including one with a broken eye socket. In Seattle, where a mob had taken over a downtown section of the city, protesters recently went on a rampage and smashed storefront windows and damaged the municipal courthouse.

In San Francisco, the progressive district attorney has said he wont prosecute cases involving so-called quality-of-life crimes. Crimes such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc., should not and will not be prosecuted, the D.A. said after his election.

The coronavirus pandemic is bad enough. Throw in the daily destruction at the hands of the mobs, and one of the things that made America great lively, vital, dynamic U.S. cities is suffering a serious blow. Lets hope its not a fatal blow.

Progressives, as I say, are running these cities. Theyre the ones who arent doing much to end the violence and destruction. Theyre the ones reciting the mantra that most of the demonstrations are peaceful.

If progressive figures such as Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersVermont has a chance to show how bipartisanship can tackle systemic racism The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - At loggerheads, Congress, White House to let jobless payout lapse Sanders calls for the end of the filibuster following Obama's remarks MORE (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezTrump holds mini-rally at Florida airport Overnight Defense: House passes 5B Pentagon spending bill as part of broader package | One dead, eight missing after Marine Corps training accident | White House says Trump stands by controversial nominee House approves amendments to rein in federal forces in cities MORE (D-N.Y.) have condemned the violence and destruction, if theyre as mad as hell about whats going on, I guess I missed it.

As for former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenHillicon Valley: Three arrested in Twitter hack | Trump pushes to break up TikTok | House approves 0M for election security Wisconsin Republicans raise questions about death of Black Trump supporter Trump holds mini-rally at Florida airport MORE, the Democratic Partys expected presidential candidate, heres what he has to say about the urban chaos: Our freedom to speak is the cherished knowledge that lives inside every American. We will not allow any president to quiet our voice.

And what about all those cities where people are not protesting peacefully and respectfully? Is it okay to send federal troops into those places to stop the destruction? Maybe Joe Biden will have to answer that at one of the debates assuming (and this is a big assumption) one of the journalists acting as debate panelists will ask him about it.

How this will play out in the November election is still unknown. At the moment, voters seem to be more concerned about the coronavirus than the protesters. But that can change over the next three months.

By November there might be enough Americans, frustrated and unhappy with the chaos in the streets, to get Trump off the mat, which is where the polls now have him. Well know soon enough.

But at some future point, if not in November, progressives likely will elect a president and a Congress and effectively take over the federal government. Its bound to happen sooner or later.

Progressives already have taken over a large chunk of American culture our major news outlets, Hollywood movie studios, TV sitcoms, some of our top colleges. Theyre the ones cheering on the cancel culture where you can lose your job for having an unacceptable opinion. And when theyre in charge of the federal government, the future will look a lot like the present the one were watching on TV every day.

But dont worry. As the progressive mayors of our once-great cities and the likely Democratic candidate for president are all telling us, its just a case of people demanding change peacefully and respectfully.

Just one question: Where?

Bernard Goldberg, an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist, is a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. He previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

Originally posted here:
Today's protests are a preview of our progressive future | TheHill - The Hill

WASHINGTON - On Monday, August 3, Stand Up Americas Sean Eldridge will host a press call with Fair Fight Action Founder Stacey Abrams and Indivisible Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director Leah Greenberg to demand that election funding be a non-negotiable part of the final coronavirus relief package.

This week, Senate Republicans drew massive backlash for failing to include any election assistance in their plan even after House Democrats passed the HEROES Act with $3.6 billion in funding for the states ten weeks ago. As Congress continues negotiating into next week, the speakers will demand that Republicans work with Democrats in both chambers to allocate more federal funds for states to implement safe, fair, and accessible elections this fall.

Earlier this month, Stand Up America, Indivisible, and Fair Fight Action led a coalition of voting rights groups and progressive organizations in calling on the Senate to end congressional recess early and come back to approve $3.6 billion in election assistance funds.

WHAT:Progressives Call Out Senate GOP On Election Funding

WHEN:Monday, August 3, at 11:00 AM EDT

WHO:Stacey Abrams, Founder, Fair Fight ActionSean Eldridge, Founder and President, Stand Up AmericaLeah Greenberg, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director, Indivisible

RSVP:Members of the media interested in joining the call should RSVP to Ryan Thomas at ryan@standupamerica.com.

###

See the original post:
Progressive Groups To Congress: Election Funds Non-Negotiable in Next Relief Bill - Common Dreams

Upstanding children singing those old time Christian songs back in the heyday of CHOP/CHAZ. Charles Mudede

Sponsored

He took on Trump to protect our Democratic values. It's time for his proven progressive leadership.

Back to this Vigdor chap. He believes that progressives have brought Seattle to the brink of disaster. Our atrociously high minimum wage, our oversized investments in public transportation, our general utopian dreaminess has left us with bridges that are falling, unemployed people who can't get jobs because they are too expensive to hire, and the horrors of horrors: the autonomous zone. But the most pronounced flaw in this economist's analysis turns out to be the same as Furman's: there is no break between the world before or after the pandemic. Yes, unemployment is 15 percent in Seattle, yes, that is really up there; but it was nearly 3 percent in January. And what does any of this have to do with Ed Murray, Seattle's disgraced former mayor?

Vigdor writes:

Fewer than four years later, that dream remains unrealized.

Yes, Ed Murray promised a new and bright Seattle. That did not happen. A hairy dog sits in the passenger seat of a red Mazda parked at the Columbia City Walgreens. He has many dreams that did not happen. A woman in a hat with a floral pattern looks out at Lake Washington on a sunny summer day. She hopes to see someone walking on water. This does not happen. What I'm trying to express is the feeling I had after reading Vigdor on Seattle. How does this thing (Ed Murray) connect with that (pandemic economics)? No idea. He mentions a whole bunch of developments in the previous decade and somehow attempts to connect them to a city that has been on lockdown for 3 months and is still social distancing and will continue doing so for many months without coming anywhere close to a full economic recovery. What do the West Seattle Bridge woes have to do with the present pandemic?

You get my point. Vigdor is nothing more than a fog machine for some show. And so it is best not to examine the generator of the artificial fog, and instead attempt to make out the show or scene whose mood or feeling Vigdor wants to enhance. Here is what I can tell. The murder of George Floyd found Trump, the leader of the right, returning to a part of his inaugural speech that was not much use to him while the economy was expanding and unemployment was low. But when millions lost their jobs in March due to the pandemic, Trump was left with nothing. All he had was the economy. In this respect, his understanding of the situation was not that different from the one Bill Clinton had during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Clinton survived that episode and its impeachment because the economy was booming. If it was in shambles, the blowjob in the Oval Office would have ruined him. Trump needed to be in Clinton's shoes. 42 had one front to deal with, 45 has more than you can count.

Let's revisit March 2020. Trump's reelection chances depend on repairing the crashed economy, and the process of repair depends on re-opening the economy. But re-opening America can mean only one of two things: the pandemic is over or making people live with the pandemic. Trump is in a terrible hurry, so he settles for the former. But it doesn't work. Re-opening America while infection rates and death rates are very high (what I call necro-economics) proves, by June, to be deeply unpopular with voters. The V-shaped recovery ain't happening like it's supposed to. What to do? Look over here, there's George Floyd and the protests his murder ignited.

At that point, Trump exhumed and dusted off this passage from his inaugural speech: "This American carnage stops right here and stops right now." This was about cities, their liberal mayors, their tolerance. These cities are decaying, are in chaos, are without law and order. This is the show Vigdor is trying to enhance with his New York Post piece. But who is Trump and Vigdor trying to scare? Who is their audience? Oddly enough, it's suburban voters.

CNN:

In remarks on the South Lawn, Trump claimed Washington Democrats want to assume control of local zoning decisions and attacked a rule meant to combat segregation, a move he said would "obliterate" suburbs.

Sponsored

Enjoy 10% off your favorite participatingbusinessesin Capitol Hill starting July 22nd.

More here:
Seattle Is Now the Symbol of All That Is Wrong with Progressive Politics - TheStranger.com