When Biden took office, one of his first acts was the elimination of our border security. Like a power-hungry dictator, Biden simply decided to ignore our immigration laws. His catastrophic border policy resulted in untold millions of unidentified foreign citizens from around the world pouring into our country. Its impact is now being felt in cities across the country. The worst is yet to come. PETER LEMISKA - AND WE'RE ALREADY THERE!!!
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
THE DYING LA RAZA DEMOCRAT PARTY of CORRUPTION ELECTED SWAMP KEEPER TWITTER TRUMP..... AND NOW THE NATION PAYS!
CAN YOU THINK OF A
SINGLE THING BARACK
OBAMA DID FOR BLACK
AMERICA DURING HIS
EIGHT YEAR BANKSTER
REGIME?
BUT YOU CAN NAME A MILLION THINGS LA RAZA OBAMA DID FOR THE INVADING MEXICANS!
Trump Turned US Red Because of Blue-Collar Surge, Black Indifference, Admits Progressives’ White Paper
Donald Trump won the presidency because non-college white votes surged towards the polls and because African-Americans walked away, says a new survey by the left-wing Center for American Progress.
The two shifts were critical for Trump’s breakthrough in the Democrats’ so-called “Blue Wall” in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin says the report, titled “Voter Trends in 2016: A Final Examination.”
Across these three key states, we found large shifts against Clinton among white non-college-educated voters, although typically not as large as those indicated by the exit polls. These shifts had the largest effects on Clinton’s fortunes in these states; had they not occurred she would have carried all three states easily …
In terms of black support, we estimate that the shifts in black support against Clinton were greater in all three states than was shown by the exit polls. And in two of the three states—Michigan and Pennsylvania—these shifts in black support were more important to Clinton’s losses than the decline in black turnout.
Turnout among non-college white voters surged from 54.3 percent in 2012 up to 57.3 percent in 2016, ensuring their share of the overall electorate dropped by just one point to 44.8 percent, even as Latinos and Asians nudged up by 1.4 percent to 14.4 percent. Moreover, many blue-collar Democrats pulled the lever for a third-party, allowing Trump to win two blue-collar white votes for every one which went to Clinton.
Turnout among blacks dropped sharply, from 62.1 percent in 2012 to 57.7 percent in 2016, pushing their share of the electorate down from 13 percent in 2012 to 11.9 percent in 2016.
Those two trends did in Clinton’s hopes, the report says, even though she got a larger share of the growing population of college-educated whites.
Turnout among college-educated whites from 77.6 percent to 79.5 percent, boosting their share of the electorate from 28.2 percent to 28.9 percent in 2016. The Democrats’ share of this group nudged up from 49.4 percent in 22012 to 50.1 percent in 2016, but it did not do Clinton much good because that group proved to be a much smaller portion than expected.
The November 1 report does not try to explain why Trump managed to motivate the surge of blue-collar voters, partly because the answer is likely Trump’s pro-American immigration policy. That is very unwelcome reality for the Democratic Party to accept, partly because it has based its political strategy for more than a decade on maximising the flow of poor, unassimilated, government-dependent immigrant voters into the polling booths.
In fact, one of the report’s authors, Ruy Teixeira, led that trend by publishing a 2002 book, titled The Emerging Democratic Majority. The book predicted that upper-income professionals and feminists would be able to mobilize working-class Americans and immigrants to vote Democratic, but they failed to understand how the political interest of the upper-income professional and feminists — such as greater civic diversity, free trade, cheap-labor migration, and sexual autonomy — would prove so harmful to blue-collar Americans.
President Barack Obama knew his progressive policies strained the Democratic coalition, but he didn’t moderate his reach for power. For example, Obama wrote in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope.” that the “huge influx of mostly low-skill [immigrant] workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole… [but] it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans.” However, eggs and omelets, because “in my mind, at least, the fates of black and brown were to be perpetually intertwined, the cornerstone of a coalition that could help America live up to its promise,” he wrote.
Industry-funded “nation of immigrants” polls show that Americans want to welcome migrants. But “fairness” polls show that voters put a much higher priority on helping their families, neighbors and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigration, low-wage economy. That political power of that higher priority was made clear in November 2016 when Americans put Trump in the White House.
Similarly, Obama admitted after the election that his promotion of the transgender ideology also hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances, saying:
There are clearly, though, failures on our part to give people in rural areas or in exurban areas, a sense day-to-day that we’re fighting for them or connected to them. Some of it is the prism through which they’re seeing the political debate take place. They may know less about the work that my administration did on trying to promote collective bargaining or overtime rules. But they know a lot about the controversy around transgender bathrooms because it’s more controversial, it attracts more attention.
To win back the White House, the authors urged Democrats to boost support among working-class whites and non-whites. But they do not discuss how the Democrats’ fervent support for immigrants and social outsiders makes it more difficult for them to win mainstream white or black votes. In fact, the report does not even mention immigration, as it though urges the party to do more of everything:
Rather than deciding whether to focus on (1) increasing turnout and mobilization of communities of color, a key component of the Democratic base, or (2) renewing efforts to persuade and win back some segment of white non-college-educated voters and to increase inroads among the white college-educated population, Democrats would clearly benefit from pursuing a political strategy capable of doing both.
Increasing the turnout of voters of color to Obama-level numbers, particularly among African Americans, would have turned the election narrowly in the Democrats’ favor. If black turnout and support rates in 2016 had matched 2012 levels, Democrats would have held Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and flipped North Carolina, for a 323 to 215 Electoral College victory. So increasing engagement, mobilization, and representation of people of color must remain an important and sustained goal of Democrats. They cannot expect to win and expand their representation in other offices without the full engagement and participation of voters who are black, Latino, and Asian American or other race.
At the same time, the Democrats would have made even larger gains in most states if they had successfully held President Obama’s 2012 margin among white voters without a college degree, regardless of turnout. Under this scenario, Democrats would have held Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin for a 314 to 224 Electoral College victory. Given the fact that the white non-college-educated voting population is almost four times larger as a share of the electorate than is the black voting population, it is critical for Democrats to attract more support from the white non-college-educated voting bloc—even just reducing the deficit to something more manageable, as Obama did in 2008 and 2012.
The CAP’s three progressive authors also fail to note the party’s postgraduate-professional leaders have their own self-interests — including cooperation with major business interests, encouragement of immigrant labor and aggressive enforcement of diversity — — which are also lethal to the future of another Democratic constituency, white-collar college graduates.
Many of those graduates are watching the Democrats’ policies ensure more good jobs get automated, outsourced or stigmatized. That trend creates an opportunity for Trump to boost his share of that voting bloc by reducing white-collar outsourcing, often via unpopular guest-worker programs.
The authors are apparently so alarmed by their data that they warn Democrats that Trump can win again in 2020:
President Trump can conceivably reconstruct his primarily white coalition from 2016 with very few changes and still eke out a narrow Electoral College victory in 2020. But this assumes that Democrats do little to either increase the turnout of voters of color or to make inroads with disaffected white Trump voters, particularly Obama-Trump voters.
"Thousands of young people have also been drawn into the abuse of opioids, spurred on by the lack of job opportunities and the predatory drug companies. Opioid overdoses claimed the lives of about 64,000 Americans last year, a jump of 21 percent over the previous year, according to new figures release by the Centers for Disease Control."
It is no wonder that a new report from the American Psychological Association, “Stress in America: The State of Our Nation,” reveals that nearly two thirds of Americans (63 percent) are “really, really, really stressed” about the future of the United States. This stress about the future of America supersedes even the usual suspects: money (62 percent) and work (61 percent).
Twenty-six dead in Texas church massacre: A society ravaged by pathological violence
By Kate Randall 7 November 2017
A small town in Texas was the scene of a horrific mass shooting Sunday morning. A lone gunman, wearing black tactical gear and a ballistics vest, and toting what authorities described as an “assault-type rifle,” opened fire at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, population about 700, southeast of San Antonio, killing 26 people.
At least a dozen of the dead were children, one as young as 18 months. Eight members of one family were killed. The grandmother of the shooter’s wife was also killed. Fifteen of the 20 wounded remain in area hospitals, several in critical condition.
The shooter, Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, was pursued by a local resident, who saw the attack and drew a weapon and fired on the gunman. Kelley dropped his weapon and attempted to escape by driving away. Two people followed him by car and he was eventually found dead in his vehicle, crashed by the roadside in a neighboring county. Authorities believe he died of a self-inflicted wound, with several weapons at his side.
When Americans turned on their televisions or checked their phones or laptops midday Sunday, many shook their heads in disgust at the news of yet another gruesome mass shooting in America. More innocent lives gunned down in what authorities would have us believe are “senseless killings,” with no real explanation provided aside from describing the gunman as someone gripped by “pure evil.”
But do such banal explanations hold up under conditions where these mass shootings continue to occur with regularity and increasing brutality? The Sutherland Springs shooting took place just five weeks after the Las Vegas shooting at a country music festival, the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history, which left 59 dead and 546 injured.
Eight of the 20 deadliest mass shootings in the US have taken place over the past five years (all figures include the perpetrators):
· November 5, 2017: Sutherland Springs, Texas church shooting—27 dead
· October 1, 2017: The Harvest music festival in Las Vegas, Nevada—59 dead
· June 12, 2016: Pulse Nightclub, Orlando, Florida—49 dead
· December 2, 2015: San Bernardino, California shooting—14 dead
· October 1, 2015: Umpqua Community College shooting, Oregon—10 dead
· September 16, 2013: Washington Navy Yard shooting, Washington DC—13 dead
· December 14, 2012: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Newtown, Connecticut—28 dead
· July 20, 2012: Century 16 movie theater shooting, Aurora, Colorado—12 dead
Following Sunday’s shootings, the authorities were quick to chime in with their religious platitudes, as well as cynically seizing on the tragedy as an opportunity to advance their pro-gun-lobby or gun-control agendas.
Speaking at a joint press conference with Japanese President Abe Shinzo in Japan, President Trump stated: “I think that mental health is a problem here. Based on preliminary reports, this was a very deranged individual with a lot of problems over a very long period of time … but this isn’t about guns.”
Former president Barack Obama tweeted: “We grieve with all the families in Sutherland Springs harmed by this act of hatred, and we’ll stand with the survivors as they recover. May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst.”
But such statements are cold comfort to the Sutherland Springs families who are grieving and offer little by way of explanation to the public at large as to why such atrocities continue to happen. Of course, the perpetrators of these mass shootings are invariably deranged individuals. How could it be otherwise? What “sane” person would gun down innocent people at a church, a university, an elementary school, or a music festival? But there are always deeper societal issues at work in the lives and actions of these individuals that drive them to lash out with violence.
In his 26 years, Devin Patrick Kelley had already participated in his share of violence before Sunday’s incident. A spokeswoman for the Air Force confirmed that Kelley, who joined the military after graduating from high school in 2009, was court-martialed in 2012 on two charges of assaulting his first wife and her child. The child reportedly suffered a fractured skull.
He was confined for a year, given a bad conduct discharge, and reduced in rank to an airman basic. Although this discharge should have barred him from purchasing weapons, the Air Force never informed the FBI of the charges against him.
Kelley’s first wife divorced him in 2012 and he remarried in Texas in 2014. Authorities say there was a “domestic situation” between him and his in-laws that led to the assault. His mother-in-law was a parishioner at the Sutherland Springs church, and she had reportedly received threatening text messages from him, although she was not present at the church on Sunday.
NBC also reported that two of Kelley’s ex-girlfriends said he stalked them after breakups. A search of criminal records in Comal County, Texas, where he lived, found a record of only minor violations, including driving with an expired registration, speeding, and driving without insurance.
While Kelley lived in Colorado Springs, Colorado for a short time in 2014, he was arrested on an animal cruelty charge, according to police records, involving beating a dog with both fists and punching it in the head and chest, a witness said. He paid a fine in that case.
But the question remains, what kind of society molds such an individual, willing to settle a seemingly petty score by carrying out mass murder? One must first look to the US military. For Kelley and other young men and women, the US has been in a perpetual state of war—in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Africa and elsewhere—for their entire lives. The current occupant of the White House is threatening the obliteration of an entire nation and people in North Korea.
Kelley—faced with the prospect of unemployment, a low-paying job in the service industry or the precarious “gig” economy—chose to enlist in the military upon graduation from high school. He likely absorbed the military’s jingoism and “America First” mentality, but the Air Force eventually spit him out with a bad conduct discharge after he abused his family.
Thousands of young people have also been drawn into the abuse of opioids, spurred on by the lack of job opportunities and the predatory drug companies. Opioid overdoses claimed the lives of about 64,000 Americans last year, a jump of 21 percent over the previous year, according to new figures release by the Centers for Disease Control.
And while the Trump administration claims that not one
cent in additional funding can be provided for the opioid
“public health emergency,” the White House and the
Republicans are pushing through a massive tax cut for
corporations that will lower the corporate tax rate from the
current 35 percent to 20 percent.
Increasing numbers of older workers are unable to retire, and are working into their 70s to maintain their health insurance and enough money to pay their rent or mortgages. For the first time since 1993, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, life expectancy actually declined between 2014 and 2015.
It is no wonder that a new report from the American Psychological Association, “Stress in America: The State of Our Nation,” reveals that nearly two thirds of Americans (63 percent) are “really, really, really stressed” about the future of the United States. This stress about the future of America supersedes even the usual suspects: money (62 percent) and work (61 percent).
Other common sources of stress reported by those surveyed include social divisiveness (59 percent), health care (43 percent), the economy (35 percent), potential wars/conflicts with other countries (30 percent), unemployment and low wages (22 percent), and climate change and environmental issues (21 percent).
Despite these very real concerns among ordinary Americans, the two big-business parties have no interest in addressing issues of social inequality and the struggles of workers and young people on a daily basis to survive and provide for their families.
"These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty.
OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS to serve the filthy rich
The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s.
“This study follows reports released over the past several months documenting rising mortality rates among US workers due to drug addiction and suicide, high rates of infant mortality, an overall leveling off of life expectancy, and a growing gap between the life expectancy of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.”
OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERISM destroyed a TRILLION DOLLARS in home equity… and they’re still plundering us!
Barack Obama created more debt for the middle class than any president in US
history, and also had the only huge QE programs: $4.2 Trillion.
OXFAM reported that during Obama’s terms, 95% of the wealth created went to
the top 1% of the world’s wealthy.
THE HOUSTON FLOOD - CRONY CAPITALIST LICK THEIR LIPS OVER REBUILDING.... FIRST, LIKE KATRINA, CUT WAGES AND INVITE HORDES MORE ILLEGALS IN TO WORK CHEAP!
"Like Katrina, Hurricane Harvey has lifted the lid on the ugly reality of American society, exposing colossal levels of social inequality, pervasive poverty and ruling class criminality."
"The reason why these warnings have been ignored is not hard to fathom. They have been resolutely opposed by corporate interests, including the real estate industry, Wall Street and Big Oil. Their ability, operating through bribed politicians of both parties, to veto and block elementary measures to protect the American people, exemplifies the complete subordination of all social needs under capitalism to the selfish drive of a corporate-financial oligarchy to accumulate ever greater levels of personal wealth and profit."
THEY INVADE OVER AND UNDER OUR BORDERS… and do so by invitation of the Democrat Party.
Lawmen are worried that the cartel tunnel builders on the Mexican border are now using their engineered concoctions to smuggle illegals, not merely drugs.
That's what the Daily Caller has found, describing the new anxiety as one was discovered over the weekend, catching about 30 illegals coming in from Mexico and China. MONICA SHOWALTER – AMERICAN THINKER.com
Democratic Party faction
calls 2016 election “train wreck,” proposes relationship with pseudo-left
By Eric London
8 November 2017
One year after the 2016 general election, the Democratic Party
faces a crisis of historic proportions. Deep divisions are emerging from the
party’s efforts to respond to Hillary Clinton’s electoral defeat.
At the end of October, a group of Democratic politicos associated
with Bernie Sanders’ campaign published a 34-page “autopsy” of the 2016
election. Calling the Democratic campaign a “train wreck,” the authors conclude
that the party must respond to growing discontent since “many view the party as
often in service to a rapacious oligarchy and increasingly out of touch with
people in its own base.”
The authors lament the fact that “since Obama’s victory in 2008,
the Democratic Party has lost control of both houses of Congress and more than
1,000 state legislative seats. The GOP now controls the governorship as well as
the entire legislature in 26 states.”
When viewed historically, the Democratic collapse is, in fact,
extraordinary. Outside of the 1919-23 postwar Republican revival and the 1894
Democratic midterm disaster, the Democratic drop-off from 2008 to the present
is unprecedented in the post-Civil War period.
After the 2008 elections, the Democratic Party won 60 of 100 US
Senate seats and a 79-seat majority in the House of Representatives (257 to
178). On the state level, it held 29 of 50 governor's seats while also
controlling both chambers of state legislatures in 27 states compared to 14 for
Republicans, with 8 split. The party had a favorability rating of 62 percent
compared to 31 percent unfavorable.
Nine years later, the Democrats have been swept from large
majorities in both houses in Congress while, on the state level, Democratic
losses are even more revealing. The party controls only 15 governor's seats and
is a majority of both houses of state legislatures in just 14 states, all of
which (with the exceptions of New Mexico and Illinois) are on the Pacific or
Northeast coasts. Between California and New York there is not a single state
with a Democratic governor and Democratic majorities in both state
legislatures, and only 7 in total. This is the lowest level of state Democratic
legislative control since at least the 1920s.
According to a CNN poll released on November 7, the Democratic
Party is just as hated as Donald Trump, with a favorability rating of just 37
percent. Fifty-four percent of people view the party unfavorably, the worst
showing for the Democrats since polling on party favorability began in 1992.
The “Democratic Autopsy” states that the historic drop-off in
Democratic support in the working class and among youth threatens to transform
the party into a permanent rump and open the way for the growth of independent
opposition on the left. The authors warn that the Democrats will be obliterated
if they do not appeal to populist sentiments: “We live in a time of unrest and
justified cynicism towards those in power; Democrats will not win if they
continue to bring a wonk knife to a populist gunfight.”
According to the authors of the Democratic Autopsy, the
fundamental challenge for the party is how to present itself as left-wing and
thereby prevent electoral collapse.
There are two components to accomplishing this task, they state.
The first requirement is internal party reform of the primary process to
eliminate the popular conception that the party is corrupt. In addition, the
authors suggest that the party should hire more minority contractors and
political staff, make changes to party financing rules to appear
“anti-corporate,” and bring Sanders supporters into the official party machine.
There is a definite fear, held not just by Sanders supporters (as evidenced by
former DNC interim head Donna Brazile’s new book) that ongoing Clinton family
domination of the party apparatus amounts to an electoral death sentence.
The second element of the party’s proposed reorientation requires
allying with the trade union and “social movement” apparatus, including
elements of the pseudo-left.
The authors of the report warn of “numerous reports of deep
cynicism among voters” during the campaign that “mirrored the vast discontent
so unmistakably expressed in recent protests.” The party apparatus recognized
popular hostility among Flint residents to Clinton’s campaign stop, for
example, as well as the refusal of the mother of a victim of police violence to
share a platform with the candidate.
The authors noted that Sanders’ adoption of the Occupy Wall Street
slogan “We are the 99 percent” yielded significant electoral results. They
argue: “Democratic Party leaders at the DNC and throughout the country must
build relationships with social movements on the basis of genuine cooperation
and coalition building.”
They explain, “The ebb and flow of social movements offer a rising
tide in their own right that along the way can lift Democratic Party
candidates—if the party is able to embrace the broad popular sentiment that the
movements embody… [F]ailing to make genuine common cause with grassroots
outlooks can undermine campaign enthusiasm, volunteers, online participation,
recurring small-donor contributions, and turnout at election time.”
Who are the forces with which this faction of the Democratic Party
proposes to “build relationships?” This is further elaborated in the document.
The report sees a key lesson in the “Fight for $15” campaign, which it claimed
“show[ed] the power of union activism teaming up with non-union advocates for
workers… That growth would certainly help to expand the middle class and, with
it, support for the party.”
The Fight for $15 is a coalition that involves trade union
bureaucracies and “non-union advocates” including pseudo-left groups like
Socialist Alternative, which has played a central role in the bureaucracies’
campaign to bring service workers into the trade union fold.
The “Autopsy” document also explains that the Democrats will have
to “build relationships” with groups that call themselves socialist:
“Young people are more and more rejecting capitalist politics,”
the report notes, criticizing the Democratic leadership for its “inability to
tap into this sentiment.” The authors are concerned that “young voters are
moving leftward but identify less with the nominally ‘left’ major party.”
Popular opposition to war also threatens to break free of the Democratic
Party stranglehold. The report acknowledges that former defense secretary Leon
Panetta was interrupted with cries of “no more war” from younger delegates and
adds, “While public support for ongoing war on many fronts has ebbed, the
Democratic Party’s top leadership has continued to avidly back it. This
disconnect not only depresses enthusiasm and support—reflected in donations,
volunteer energies, turnout and votes—from the party’s traditional base; it
also undermines Democratic capacities to draw in voters who identify as
independent or have gravitated to another party.”
The report does not, of course, propose that the party transform
itself into an antiwar party, but rather mildly suggests that Democrats
distinguish between unnecessary wars and “defense of our country.”
The reader senses a nervous tone when the “Democratic Autopsy”
references youth and workers who are gravitating to other parties, don’t
identify as Democrats, and are increasingly interested in socialism. The
authors are concerned that the Democratic Party has lost sight of its
fundamental modern role, dating back to the emergence of industrial and
agricultural populism in the late 1800s, to subsume popular protest, nullify
the elements that threaten private property and corporate profit, and sustain
an electoral and political legitimacy by enacting certain limited reforms.
Representatives of the pseudo-left have long since championed an
alliance with the “left wing” of the Democratic Party on this basis, justifying
it with the need to gain access to “political space,” etc. But the Democrats
are now acknowledging what the real purpose of such a relationship would be:
prop up one of the two parties of corporate rule at precisely the moment it is
rightly reviled by the population and thereby block the growth of social
opposition from developing in a revolutionary socialist direction.
Poll: CA Dems in Trouble Over High Costs, Jobs, Taxes & Illegal Aliens
California Democrats could be in trouble in 2018, with the latestUSC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll finding registered voters’ top concerns are the traditionally Republican issues of high cost of living, jobs, taxes, and illegal immigrants.
The USC poll found that the most important concerns for voters are the high cost of living, at 21.8 percent; followed by jobs, at 9.9 percent; taxes and fees, at 8.9 percent; and illegal immigration, at 6.9 percent.
Traditionally Democrat social justice issues tended to be near the bottom of poll concerns, with racism at 1.9 percent; education at 1.4 percent; poverty at 1.2 percent; and the bullet train at just 0.2 percent. The strongest single issue for Democrats is the 5 percent of voters concerned about Republican President Donald Trump.
Women voters are more concerned than men regarding the high cost of living, at 22.6 percent; jobs at 10.1 percent; and illegal immigration at 7.7 percent. Women are about a third less concerned than the average voter about taxes and fees at 6.9 percent; but only half as concerned about the environment, at 2.4 percent (as opposed to 4.4 percent for men).
In what may be the political equivalent for Democrats of the dead canary in the mine shaft, women are concerned more concerned that California is headed in the wrong direction by 57.6 percent, versus 53.6 percent for men.
Concerns about high costs are the most important issue for all age groups, but 18-to-44-year-olds are the most, concerned at 22.9 percent. Younger voters are much less concerned with taxes and fees at 5.1 percent, compared to 11.4 percent of 44-to-64-year-olds, and 12.2 percent for those 65 and up. But young voters, shockingly, are more concerned than average voters about illegal immigration at 7.4 percent.
Hispanics voters are less than half as concerned as white voters about taxes, at 5 percent; a third less about President Trump, at 4 percent; and only one-fifth as concerned about California state government, at 1.2 percent. But Hispanics are almost twice as concerned about jobs. Surprisingly, Hispanics are only slightly less concerned than the average voter about illegal immigration at 6.2 percent.
On an income basis, Californians making less than $50,000 per year are a third more concerned about jobs, at 13.4 percent, than the average voter. But almost shockingly, voters that make under $50,000 are slightly more concerned about taxes and fees at 9 percent than higher income voters at 8.8 percent. Generally lower-income non-college graduates are most concerned about taxes and fees, at 9.4 percent, compared to generally higher income college graduates, at only 6.1 percent.
California voters favor cancelling the gas tax and fees to build infrastructure (supposedly) by 54.2 percent to 45.8 percent. Voters that make under $50,000 are the most in favor of canceling the gas tax by 57.6 percent, versus 52.5 percent of those making over $50,000. Women oppose the gas tax by 53.3 percent, only slightly less than the 55.3 percent of men. The only demographic favoring the gas tax is 18-to-44-year-olds at just 50.3 percent.
With the 2018 election for governor heating up, the California politician with the highest statewide favorability rating is Gov. Jerry Brown at 40.3 percent. None of the 7 declared candidates for governor are in the top 12 for political favorability in the state.
Democrat Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is currently leading the race to replace termed-out Brown, with 24.5 percent support. But the race has narrowed with former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, at 16.3 percent. Virtually unknown before he sponsored the gas tax repeal, Assemblyman Travis Allen (R-Huntington Beach) is in third at 11.8 percent.
No comments:
Post a Comment