Connect with us

Published

on

The most succinct explanation for how Republicans expect Donald Trump to win in November may have come from, of all people, the firebrand Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida.

What I can tell you, Gaetz said earlier this year, is for every Karen we lose, theres a Julio and Jamal ready to sign up for the MAGA movement.

What Gaetz is saying, in his somewhat stereotypical racial shorthand, is that even if Trump alienates a growing number of well-educated white women (Karen), he can overcome those losses by attracting more blue-collar, nonwhite men (Julio and Jamal).

Even most Democrats agree that Trump appears positioned to gain ground this year among Black and Latino men without a college degreegroups that already moved in his direction from 2016 to 2020, according to studies of the vote such as the analysis of the results released by Catalist, a Democratic voter-targeting firm. And even many Republicans acknowledge that Trump in 2024 could face an even bigger deficit among college-educated white women, who already voted against him in larger numbers in 2020 than in 2016, according to those same studies.

Read: Americans really dont like Trumps health-care plans

Those offsetting movements among white women with a college degree and nonwhite men without one point toward the shifting demographic dynamics that could settle the rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden.

The differences in political allegiance across racial groups has long been one of the central divides in American elections, and it will remain crucial in 2024. But the differences within each racial group along the lines of education and gender may prove at least as important this year.

For Trump, the most likely path to victory in 2024 is maximizing his support among voters without a college degree, especially men, in every racial group. Victory for Biden will likely require him to maximize his backing among voters with a four-year degree or more, especially women, in each racial group.

Early polling about the 2024 presidential race mostly shows a continuation of the complex interplay between race, education, and gender that has reshaped the two parties coalitions over the past generation.

Since the 1980s, the consistent trend among white voters is that Democrats have run better among men than women, and better among those with at least a four-year college degree than those without one. These effects are reinforcing: Democrats typically perform best among white women with a degree and worst among men without one. The men with a degree, and the women without one, are the most closely contested groups among white voters, though those women usually lean red and those men have tilted more toward Democrats in the Trump era.

Traditionally, minority voters did not divide as much along these axes of gender and education. But more of these cross pressures have surfaced since Trumps emergence as the GOPs dominant figure. In 2016, Hillary Clinton drew much less support among Latino men than among Latinas, according to the analysis by Catalist. In 2020, Trump improved substantially among Latino men and Latina women, but this time his gains were greatest among those without degrees. Those cumulative changes moved Latinos closer to the pattern familiar among white voters: Though Biden carried 67 percent of Latina voters with a college degree, he won only 56 percent of Latino men without one, Catalist found.

Black voters didnt differ much along educational lines in either Trump campaign, but those contests opened a consistent gender gap: Each time, Trump ran a few points better among Black men than among Black women, according to the Catalist results.

All of these movements have stirred Republican hopes that they are now poised to advance in minority communities among the same groups where they have gained the most over the past generation among white peoplevoters without a college degree, especially men. A wide array of national polls, as well as surveys in the swing states, have consistently shown Trump now attracting about 20 percent support among Black voters, and as much as 45 percent among Latinos. Thats well above his 2020 showing with both groups and a better performance than any GOP presidential nominee since the civil-rights era.

Read: Trump would break the budget

People will ask you: Why is it? Its because of the issues these people care about. Its crime, its affordability, and its also immigration, Jim McLaughlin, a pollster for Trump, told me.

Bidens support is drooping in these surveys among nonwhite voters of almost every description. But detailed results from the most recent New York Times/Siena College poll show that, among minority voters, Biden now faces the greatest vulnerability with the same group that is toughest for him among white people: men without a college degree. That survey, released early in March, found Trump, stunningly, running even with Biden among those blue-collar nonwhite men, according to the results provided by Don Levy, the director of the Siena Research Institute, which conducts the poll.

In that same poll, only one in seven nonwhite men without a degree said that Bidens policies had helped them personally, while more than one in three said his policies had hurt them. For Trump, the proportions were reversed: More than one in three of those men said his policies had helped them, while only about one in seven said they had been hurt by his agenda.

Like many Democratic strategists, the longtime party consultant Chuck Rocha believes that Biden risks losing ground among blue-collar, nonwhite men, especially those who are younger to early middle age. Ive never seen more of a disconnect when I do focus groups of people who dont give him credit for any of that shit hes done, Rocha told me. He gets no credit with nobody.

If Biden can hold his losses among nonwhite voters primarily to men without a college degree, Democrats would likely breathe a sigh of relief. Thats because those men cast less than 9 percent of all votes in 2020, according to calculations from census data by William Frey, a demographer at Brookings Metro, shared exclusively with The Atlantic. Partly because their turnout is so low, they are not a rapidly growing group in the electorate: Frey projects that only about 500,000 more of those noncollege, nonwhite men will vote in 2024 than 2020.

Biden will face much greater risk if Trump can extend his gains to other segments of the nonwhite community. Polls now suggest thats possible.

Looking through the lenses of gender and education, the largest group of nonwhite voters are women without a college degree. They cast more than 10 percent of all votes in 2020, according to Freys calculations (although he expects that they will add only a modest 225,000 more voters in 2024).

These blue-collar women of color are not an intrinsically easy audience for Republicans. Nearly three-fifths of them agreed that the Republican Party has been taken over by racists, and a comparable number supported legal abortion in all or most circumstances, according to polling provided by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). In surveys by the Pew Research Center, four-fifths of non-college-educated Black women said they had an unfavorable view of Trump, as did two-thirds of Latina women without a degree.

Yet economic discontent has left a clear opening for Trump. In last months New York Times/Siena survey, fewer than one in 10 of these women said Bidens policies had helped them personally; more than three times as many said they had benefited from Trumps policies.

College-educated nonwhite men are another obvious target for Trump, though they are a relatively small group. These men are highly liberal on social issues. But they also express substantial economic discontent: More of them say that they personally benefited from Trumps policies rather than Bidens.

Among voters of color, women with a college degree provide Biden his best chance to improve on his 2020 support. Those women cast about 6 percent of all votes in 2020, Frey calculates, but heexpects they will add more voters in 2024 than will any other segment of the minority community.

In PRRIs polling, college-educated women consistently take the most liberal positions of any minority group: Nearly three-fourths of them, for instance, say abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances. High percentages of both Black and Latina college-educated women express negative views about Trump in Pews polling. And in contrast to the other minority groups, significantly more nonwhite women with a college degree said in the New York Times/Siena poll that they had been helped rather than hurt by Bidens policies, while slightly more of them said the opposite about Trump.

White women with a college degree may be even more important as an offset for Biden if he loses ground among nonwhite men, as polls now suggest he will. These well-educated white women cast more than 16 percent of all votes in 2020, and with women now composing three-fifths of all college graduates, Frey projects that 1.1 million more of them will vote in 2024 than in 2020. These women tilt strongly left on most social issues and were far more likely than any of the other groups in the New York Times/Siena poll to say that Trumps policies had hurt them personally.

McLaughlin said Trump has an opportunity to improve among these women compared with 2020 because they are concerned about the same issues moving men toward Trump, particularly crime and immigration. But Democrats believe these womens strong support for abortion rights should allow Biden to expand his already substantial margin among them.

Theres evidence to justify those hopes. The 2022 midterm election was the first campaign after the Supreme Courts Dobbs decision rescinding the constitutional right to abortion. In those races, Democratic gubernatorial candidates supporting abortion rights ran even better than Biden did in 2020 among these college-educated white women in the key swing states of Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, according to exit polls. Biden could do better among college white women and get more of them out to vote, the Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who worked for Bidens 2020 campaign, told me. Hes not tapped out in the number of women [he can win] on the abortion issue.

Mike Madrid, a GOP strategist who has become a prominent Trump opponent in the party, told me Trump faces a conundrum as he tries to hold down his losses with these white women while securing more support among nonwhite men. Madrid said that the only bulwark Trump has against white college-educated women deserting him over abortion is to heighten their fears about illegal immigration.

But pressing those buttons with inflammatory language, and proposals such as mass deportation of undocumented migrants, risks endangering his gains among Latinos, said Madrid, the author of the upcoming book The Latino Century. Madrid said that Biden may not rebound to the margins Democrats enjoyed among Latinos a decade ago, but that once more of them become aware of Trumps proposals on immigration, the former presidents high poll numbers with the group are going to come back down to Earth.

Robert P. Jones, the president of the PRRI, told me that Trump so far has had the luxury of running two parallel campaigns. All of his belligerent proposals and dehumanizing language about immigrants are reaching his base of socially conservative white voters through conservative media, while little is getting through to nonwhite voters, who are mostly less attuned to the election. Like Madrid, Jones believes that more nonwhite voters will recoil from Trumps harshest policies and words when they learn more about them. The question is whether he is going to be able to keep up this two-track strategy, Jones said.

Demographic change will provide another thumb on the scale for Biden. White voters without a college degree, now the GOPs best group, have declined about two percentage points as a share of voters in each presidential election for decades, and Frey expects that pattern to continue in 2024. In all, Frey predicts that the number of college-educated voters of all races will increase by about 4 million this year compared with 2020, while the number of noncollege voters will decline by about a million. If Frey is right, the share of college-educated voters of all races in the 2024 electorate will increase by about two percentage points from 2020, while voters of color will increase their share by about one percentage point.

These small changes in the electorates composition should marginally boost Biden. But they are not enough to overcome the level of defection polls show him now facing among nonwhite voters. Democratic strategists such as Rocha working in minority communities believe that Biden can claw back some of that support, particularly among women, by focusing more attention on abortion and Trumps racially confrontational policies and language. Yet these cultural and race-related issues may work better for Biden with college-educated white voters, who consistently express much less concern in polls about their immediate economic situation than other Americans do.

Matt Morrison, the executive director of Working America, a group that organizes working-class voters who are not in unions, told me that the key for Biden with blue-collar voters of color will be to make them more aware of policies he has pursued to help them make ends meet, such as his programs to reduce prescription-drug costs. The nonwhite voters leaning toward Trump, Morrison noted, are not nearly as attracted to his policies and persona as most working-class white voters are. I am looking at who Biden has lost support from, and they are not MAGA Republicans, Morrison told me. They are people who have not gotten a reason to vote for the president.

If Biden cant effectively communicate such a reason to more nonwhite voters, the 2024 election could produce a historic irony. After a political career in which Trump has relentlessly stoked white racial grievances, his ability to fracture the nonwhite community along lines of gender and education could be the decisive factor that propels him to a second term.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Sabrina Carpenter hits out at ‘evil and disgusting’ White House video featuring her song

Published

on

By

Sabrina Carpenter hits out at 'evil and disgusting' White House video featuring her song

Sabrina Carpenter has hit out at an “evil and disgusting” White House video of migrants being detained that uses one of her songs.

“Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda,” the pop star posted on X.

The White House used part of Carpenter‘s upbeat song Juno over pictures of immigration agents handcuffing, chasing and detaining people.

It was posted on social media on Monday and has been viewed 1.2 million times so far.

President Trump‘s policy of sending officers into communities to forcibly round up illegal immigrants has proved controversial, with protests and legal challenges ongoing.

Mr Trump promised the biggest deportation in US history, but some of those detained have been living and working in the US for decades and have no criminal record.

Carpenter is not the only star to express disgust over the administration’s use of their music.

More on Sabrina Carpenter

Olivia Rodrigo last month warned the White House not to “ever use my songs to promote your racist, hateful propaganda” after All-American Bitch was used in a video urging undocumented migrants to leave voluntarily.

Read more from Sky News:
Pope urges Trump not to oust Venezuelan president by force

Government delays Chinese ‘super embassy’ decision

In July, English singer Jess Glynne also said she felt “sick” when her song from the viral Jet2 advert was used over footage of people in handcuffs being loaded on a plane.

Other artists have also previously hit out at Trump officials for using their music at political campaign events, including Guns N’ Roses, Foo Fighters, Celine Dion, Ozzy Osbourne and The Rolling Stones.

Continue Reading

World

‘No one helped us’: The community left in a mass of mud and loss after cyclone

Published

on

By

'No one helped us': The community left in a mass of mud and loss after cyclone

This community in Sri Lanka’s Kandy District is a mass of mud and loss.

The narrow, filthy streets in Gampola are filled with broken furniture, sodden toys and soiled mattresses. A torrent of floodwater ripped through this neighbourhood and many people had no time to escape.

Trying to reach their now destroyed homes is like wading through treacle – the mud knee-deep.

Many locals say they were not warned about the threat Cyclone Ditwah posed here before it struck last Friday, and weren’t told to evacuate. They say they’ve received very little help since.

Resourceful neighbours were left to try to help rescue survivors. But some had to carry the bodies of the dead, too. Mohamed Fairoos was one of them.

Fairoos Mohamed
Image:
Fairoos Mohamed

“We took five bodies from here,” he says, gesturing to a house full of debris, where mattresses hang drying over the balcony.

“We took nine bodies in total and handed them over to the hospital.” He appears both shocked and exasperated at the lack of support this community received.

The house where Fairoos pulled the bodies from
Image:
The house where Fairoos pulled the bodies from

“When I took the bodies, the police, the navy, no one sent for us.” He tells me he even posted a video online appealing for boats, hoping it might help.

I ask him if he thinks the government has done enough. “No,” he says forcefully. “No one called for us. No one helped us. No one gave us any boats.”

Read more: Families count the cost of devastating floods

Kumudu Wijekon and her husband Kumar Premachandra
Image:
Kumudu Wijekon and her husband Kumar Premachandra

‘Five people were killed here’

Just a few doors down, a group of volunteers have come to clear another home filled with floodwater. “Five people were killed here,” one of them tells me.

Five of them came from one family: a mother, father, their two daughters and son. Kumudu Wijekon tells me she was friends with them and they’d fled here to a friend’s house, hoping to escape the threat.

“There was heavy rain, but they didn’t think there would be flooding. They left their own home to save themselves from landslides. If they had stayed, they would have survived.”

Chamilaka Dilrukshi
Image:
Chamilaka Dilrukshi

‘We don’t have a single rupee’

A short drive away, Chamilaka Dilrukshi is sobbing inside the photography studio she shares with her husband Ananda. They have two children aged four and 11.

Chamilaka is clutching a bag of rice – she says it’s been donated by a friend and it’s all they have to eat.

Ananda Wijebandara and his wife Chamilaka Dilrukshi
Image:
Ananda Wijebandara and his wife Chamilaka Dilrukshi

Everything in the shop is wrecked – expensive cameras and lighting equipment covered in thick layers of mud, and outside, rows of broken frames and ripped pictures.

They think they’ve lost nearly £2,500 and their home is severely damaged. She weeps as she tells us: “We don’t have a single rupee to start our business again. We spent all of our savings on trying to build our house.”

Like Mohamed, she believed they should have been warned. “We didn’t know anything. If we did, we would have taken our cameras and our computers out. We just didn’t know it was coming.”

The studio was caked in mud
Image:
The studio was caked in mud

Anger at government’s perceived failings

Sri Lankan president Anura Kumara Dissanayake has declared a state of emergency to deal with the aftermath of the cyclone, and international aid has arrived.

But many people are angry at the government’s perceived failings. It’s been criticised for not taking the warnings from meteorologists seriously two weeks before the cyclone made landfall, as well as for not communicating enough messages in the Tamil language.

It is going to take places like Gampola a long time to rebuild, repair and restore trust. And in a country still recovering from an economic collapse, nothing is guaranteed.

Continue Reading

Environment

Amid affordability crisis, White House unveils its plan to raise your fuel costs

Published

on

By

Amid affordability crisis, White House unveils its plan to raise your fuel costs

The White House formally announced its plan to hike US fuel costs by $23 billion today, in the form of a new proposed rule cutting fuel efficiency requirements.

Update 12/3: This article has been updated to reflect the formal announcement of the proposed rule.

Since the beginning of this year, the occupants of the White House have been on a mission to raise costs for Americans.

This mission has encompassed many different moves, most notably through unwise tariffs.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

But another effort has focused on changing policy in a way that will raise fuel costs for Americans, adding to already-high energy prices.

The specific rollback today focuses on a rule passed under President Biden which would save Americans $23 billion in fuel costs by requiring higher fuel economy from auto manufacturers. By making cars use less fuel on average, Americans would not only save money on fuel, but reduce fuel demand which means that prices would go down overall.

The effort to roll back this rule was initially announced on the first day that Sean Duffy started squatting in the head office of the Department of Transportation. Duffy notably earned his transportation expertise by being a contestant on Road Rules: All Stars, a reality TV travel game show.

Then in June, Duffy formally reinterpreted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard, claiming falsely that his department does not have authority to regulate fuel economy.

Republicans in Congress even got into effort to raise your fuel costs, as part of their ~$4 trillion giveaway to wealthy elites included a measure to make CAFE rules irrelevant by setting penalties for violating them to $0. In addition, it eliminated a number of other energy efficiency and domestic advanced manufacturing incentives.

Duffy’s department then told automakers that they would not face any fines retroactively to 2022, which saved the automakers (mostly Stellantis) a few hundred million dollars and cost American consumers billions in fuel costs.

Today, Duffy formally announced the proposed changes to the CAFE rules, lowering the required fuel economy for 2022-2031 model year vehicles, even despite all of the other changes in trying to make the rules unenforceable. The theory behind this would be to make it harder to later enforce the rules, and to allow automakers to get off with more pollution, and to increase fuel demand and fuel prices for longer until a real government returns to power and starts doing its job to regulate pollution.

Specifically, the announcement changes the planned 2031 50.5 mpg target to 34.5 mpg, cutting vehicle efficiency by nearly a third, which will lead to a commensurate increase in your fuel costs.

CAFE targets have been in place since the 1970s. In the last two decades, they helped drive a 30% improvement in average fuel economy, saving an average of $7,000 over the lifetime of an average vehicle – and they did this without increasing vehicle prices.

Rollback supported by auto CEOs who want to increase your costs

Today’s announcement was praised by the CEOs of the Big Three American automakers – GM, Ford, and Stellantis (formerly Chrysler). Ford CEO Jim Farley and Stellantis CEO Antonio Filosa attended the announcement at the White House, along with a manager from GM, though Barra signaled her support while speaking at another event.

Despite both Barra and Farley recently making statements claiming their support for electric vehicles, both cravenly supported the rollback in fuel economy standards that will cost you more money at the pump.

Barra said today that “I’m always going to advocate for one national standard and making sure regulatory requirements don’t get in front of the consumer,” despite the fact that GM lobbied against the single national standard that had been agreed to between Obama and California, and that today’s move only increases the gulf between the federal government and California on auto standards.

And Farley, despite acknowledging that the Chinese are trouncing us on EVs, said today that “we can make real progress on carbon emissions and energy efficiency while still giving customers choice and affordability,” which is detached from reality given that today’s moves will reduce affordability and efficiency and increase carbon emissions.

Their support suggests that their prior commitments to energy efficiency and electrification were not serious, as they are now joining in an effort to increase your fuel costs, just to save themselves a few engineering dollars on having to provide something other than the disgusting, deadly land yachts that are a blight on the nation’s roads and are murdering pedestrians at a 50-year high.

This isn’t the only way the White House is trying to raise your costs

Today’s announcement is just one many efforts currently being undertaken by executive departments to try to raise your fuel costs.

One of the largest is the EPA’s attempt to delete the “Endangerment Finding,” the government’s recognition of the scientific fact that climate change is dangerous to humans. The EPA is undertaking this effort so that it can then eliminate other rules intended to reduce pollution, with the goal of making you more beholden to fossil fuels.

Even the Energy Department’s own numbers, signed off on by oil shill Chris Wright, say that changes sought by the White House will increase gas prices by $.76/gal.

Like most other governmental changes, today’s change will likely go up for public comment, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act. We’ll let you know when it does.


The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending