A look ahead at the infection election
As recently as mid February, President Trump seemed to be in the best political shape he had ever been in. His job-approval numbers had been climbing since late October, as impeachment and Democratic primaries dominated the news. Bernie Sanders had won most of those early primaries, suggesting Trump would be running against someone who divided his own party and held a suite of unpopular views. The unemployment rate continued to hit new lows. We seemed to be on track to have the fourth incumbent president reelected in a row.
Then biology upended politics. We now know less about how November will go than we usually do at this point in a presidential-election year. We don’t know the future course of the virus: whether there will be a second wave, what the death toll will be, whether people will feel safe going to the polls. We don’t know what the economy will look like: whether a recovery will have begun and, if so, how robust it will be.
Even if we had answers to those questions, we would not know how those voters who are up for grabs would judge these developments. If the economy is rapidly improving but unemployment remains much higher than in the spring, will the improvement or the earlier decline matter more to them? Will they be looking for someone to blame for all our losses, in which case Trump will suffer? (Deservedly or not.) Or will they take the perspective that disaster can strike, mistakes in responding to them are inevitable, and the country has survived and begun to recover?
Even amid all this uncertainty — in these “unsettled times,” to use the language of every other advertisement on TV these days — we can confidently make a few nontrivial observations about the shape of the campaign to come.
The first is that Trump is the underdog.
In the second half of March, as the coronavirus began to dominate national life, President Trump’s net approval rating rose from –8 to –3 in the RealClearPolitics average: a substantial improvement, given the narrow band in which those numbers have moved over the last three years. Over the course of April, though, he gave back most of those gains. He appears to have benefited from a muted, and mostly temporary, version of the “rally around the flag” effect that often lifts heads of government during crises. Previous presidents, and such current leaders in other countries as Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron, saw their ratings rise by more.
Even during his March upswing, however, Trump barely improved in polls testing him against Joe Biden among registered voters. Biden is consistently leading in polls of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin: five states Trump won in 2016. Democratic victories in those states would be more than enough to make Trump the first president to be defeated for reelection in 28 years.
In 2016, overlapping majorities of the public disliked both of the major-party nominees. Those voters who disliked both Trump and Hillary Clinton — the Trump campaign’s analysts called them “double haters,” according to Joshua Green’s book Devil’s Bargain — broke heavily at the end for the Republican. Trump is viewed much more favorably now than he was four years ago, since a lot of Republicans have changed their opinion about him, and Biden is viewed more favorably than Clinton was. Among those who dislike both Trump and Biden, though, Biden has an enormous lead.
Election analyst Henry Olsen, writing in the Washington Post, sees some hope for Trump in the fact that he does slightly better in job-approval polls than in head-to-head polls against Biden. If a lot of the voters who approve of Trump’s performance but are undecided in the contest will be for him in the end, he is only slightly behind Biden.
The second thing we know is that the election will be less a “referendum” on Trump’s performance than a “choice” of candidates.
For a long time, presidential-reelection outcomes were thought mainly to represent up-or-down verdicts by the public on the incumbent’s performance. It is a theory that challengers still cherish. The classic cases are 1980 and 1984. By 1980, the public had decided that Jimmy Carter was failing as president, and Ronald Reagan needed only to establish that he was an acceptable alternative to win. In 1984, the public had decided that Reagan was a success, and Walter Mondale had no chance.
In recent elections with incumbent presidents, the challengers’ campaigns have promoted the theory. In 2004, Democratic political strategists argued that the public had turned against President George W. Bush, who was below 50 percent approval for much of the spring and summer; Democratic nominee John Kerry merely had to clear the threshold of acceptability, they said. Bush’s strategists argued that they would succeed in making the election more about Kerry’s flaws than the referendum theory suggested, and that Bush’s performance would look better as voters paid more attention to those flaws. The Republicans were right.
The next time an incumbent was up for reelection, in 2012, the parties switched sides. Republican strategists and spinners said that Barack Obama, who was under 50 percent in the spring and summer, was losing a referendum election. This time they were wrong.
In retrospect, it appears that the referendum theory of presidential elections was an artifact of a less politically polarized time. When a lot of voters floated between the parties, presidents could win or lose landslides based on their perceived performance. Now we have two hardened and roughly evenly matched party coalitions with more uniformly antagonistic views, and almost all voters lean toward one or the other of them. An incumbent starts with a high floor of support, and highlighting the ideological and personal defects of his opponent is effective in keeping those who are on the outskirts of his camp from leaving.
A third safe prediction is that the campaign will dwell more on the characters and personalities of the nominees than on their policies. This is of course a matter of degree. But if Bernie Sanders had won the Democratic nomination, we could have expected a more policy-based campaign. Sanders is enthusiastic about his policy ideas, and the Trump campaign was enthusiastic about running against them.
Biden, on the other hand, seems to come alive when promising to restore decency to the White House and talking about Trump’s deficiencies. The Trump campaign seems to view Biden’s main vulnerabilities as personal ones: his age, his many years in Washington, his son Hunter’s trading on his father’s offices, and now Tara Reade’s accusation that he sexually assaulted her when she was working for him.
The coronavirus has had a huge effect on our health, public policy, and economy. Its long-term impact is yet to be seen. As momentous as the epidemic is, though, we can already see signs that one thing it cannot disrupt is the polarization of our electorate.
This article appears as “The Infection Election” in the May 18, 2020, print edition of National Review.
Week In Politics: U.S. Sees Job Gains In May – NPR
SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
Of course, when President Trump called in the National Guard in the streets of Washington, D.C., he told governors in a conference call they must be dominating. NPR senior editor and correspondent Ron Elving joins us now. Ron, thanks so much for being with us.
RON ELVING, BYLINE: Good to be with you, Scott.
SIMON: The president spoke at the White House yesterday for roughly an hour. And with all of the events and ferment going on, he spoke mostly about the May jobs numbers, didn’t he?
ELVING: Yes, indeed, he did. And it may have been the first time we’ve seen a president take a victory lap for 13% unemployment. But, you know, that was a better number than April by almost a point and a half and way better than what economists and journalists were expecting. So it turns out that even after a short period of reopening restaurants and dentist offices and so on, millions of furloughed folks go back, and it offsets the further job losses elsewhere in the economy. And, of course, the president has been cheerleading for quick reopening. And so here he is yesterday describing this recovery.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Now we’re opening, and we’re opening with a bang. And we’ve been talking about the V. This is better than a V. This is a rocket ship.
ELVING: One thing about a rocket ship, though, Scott, as a metaphor, it does set certain expectations. Right now, the stimulus bills are still shoring up the economy to some extent, and permanent job losses actually increased in the month of May. We should note as well that job losses for African Americans actually grew and the gap between white and black unemployment got worse. Still, it was easily the best news the president has had on any front in some time.
SIMON: And this week, the president was the subject of grave and serious criticism from high-profile and respected people who once worked for him who do not approve of his leadership, do they?
ELVING: It started with that dressing down of the governors that you mentioned. Then we had the violent clearing of peaceful protesters from the park across from the White House to set up Trump’s photo-op with the Bible in the boarded-up church. All this prompted unusually sharp responses from a number of retired national security officials and even military officers, such as retired Marine General and former Secretary of Defense James Mattis. They denounced the president’s talk about sending troops into American cities, and Mattis in particular said the president had not even tried to unite the country or even pretended to try. He said the president had chosen to divide and deepen the divide. And another retired Marine general, John Allen, wrote that the events of Monday night, the clearing of the park across from the White House, looked like the beginning of the end for American democracy.
SIMON: And when these generals spoke up, a number of, I guess what we’d call – what we used to call, I might say, centrist Republicans seemed to also speak. I’m thinking specifically of the Republican senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski.
ELVING: Yes. Senator Murkowski has not been a big Trump booster, but she has stood by him on the big votes. Now, with her newfound reluctance, the president has targeted her on Twitter, vowing to support anyone who will oppose her in her next primary – anyone with a pulse, the president said.
And one other remarkable thing the president said to end the week, on Friday morning, talking about the jobs report, he said George Floyd was hopefully looking down and saying this is a great thing that’s happening for our country. Continuing to quote the president, “a great day for him, a great day for everybody, a great day in terms of equality.”
SIMON: Do we know where, when the Republican National Convention in August is going to be?
ELVING: Not really. The governor there in North Carolina, Roy Cooper, is a Democrat. He says they are still seeing a lot of new COVID cases in North Carolina. He can’t guarantee approval for 20,000 people to go to Charlotte and jam into a basketball arena in August. And that prompted the president to say he was going to move his acceptance speech, the centerpiece of the convention, out of Charlotte, possibly to Tennessee or Texas or maybe most likely to Florida, which is now his home state.
SIMON: And we will note the polls don’t look so good for the president.
ELVING: It’s been a rough week for Trump in the polls, several of which now have him trailing Joe Biden nationally by 7 points or as many as 11.
SIMON: NPR’s Ron Elving, thanks so much.
ELVING: Thank you, Scott.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
The Class of 2020 Is Missing Out, and So Are Politicians – The New York Times
The event comes with a captive audience of thousands — Republicans, Democrats, “apolitical” relatives, little siblings too young to vote. Everybody sits trapped in their bleacher seats. After 20 minutes, they dutifully applaud.
For a politician, a commencement speaking gig offers the kind of advertising that money can’t buy. “You have people of all different backgrounds gathered,” said Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, who delivered two dozen virtual commencement speeches this spring. “It’s a time of extraordinary diversity.”
Mr. Booker recalled that when he was chosen to give the address at the University of Pennsylvania in 2017, there were Republican trustees “pooh-poohing” the choice of such a partisan speaker. (He won them over, he said, with his focus on “our common values” and “the larger body politic.”)
College graduation ceremonies are fittingly focused on the graduates, but for some 20-odd minutes the spotlight turns to the illustrious speaker. Ideally the audience, in what Mr. Booker called its “extraordinary diversity,” might inspire a speech that transcends ideological divisions, as some of the most memorable ones have. The Apple founder Steve Jobs earned his spot in the commencement hall of fame with a 2005 speech at Stanford University reminding students that “you are going to die.” But when a politician steps up to the lectern, the message tends to veer away from death and toward politics.
This was no exception for the class of 2020. While isolated at home in their pajamas because of the coronavirus pandemic, graduates were saluted in virtual ceremonies headlined by government figures and entertainers. Former President Barack Obama celebrated the more than 27,000 graduates of historically black colleges and universities in May, and on Sunday he is set to join Lady Gaga, Malala Yousafzai and others in a “Dear Class of 2020” event hosted by YouTube, a lineup that even the most ambitious real-life commencement would find impossible to replicate.
One class of graduates will get its celebration in person: the 1,000 West Point cadets, who will be addressed by President Trump on June 13.
Tia Humphries, a Howard University graduate from Orlando, Fla., watched Mr. Obama’s virtual address with family in her living room, which her parents had decorated with streamers and balloons to mimic what Howard’s gymnasium would have looked like for the ceremony.
It quickly became clear the speech was not just for Ms. Humphries and her friends. The speech, given on May 16, weeks before Mr. Obama addressed the nation on the killing of George Floyd and the protest movement that followed, still used the momentous occasion as a way to reach beyond the graduates and their families.
The former president made headlines by using the opportunity to criticize the country leadership’s response to the coronavirus. He urged the graduates to take responsibility in the midst of the crisis, when political leaders “aren’t even pretending to be in charge.”
Mr. Obama’s words followed in a long tradition of graduation speeches, landing in moments of national crisis, that are partly for the graduates and partly their country at large.
President John F. Kennedy called for a nuclear test ban treaty at American University’s 1963 graduation. President Lyndon B. Johnson created the framework for affirmative action policy at Howard University in 1965, the year after the Civil Rights Act passed. In 2002, President George W. Bush told graduates of the U.S. Military Academy that the country should be prepared for “pre-emptive action” in Iraq.
These speeches form a presidential ritual as familiar as it is peculiar: addressing the nation through its newly minted adults.
Leland Shelton, a 2013 graduate of Morehouse College, recalled his experience with the personal milestone turned political. Mr. Shelton had spent the months before his graduation lobbying class leaders to pick Ray Lewis, a Baltimore Ravens linebacker, as the commencement speaker. Instead, they chose their president, Mr. Obama.
Midway through the speech the improbable happened. “Where’s Leland?” Mr. Obama said. The president went on to praise Mr. Shelton, a foster care child with a mother in prison who was Phi Beta Kappa and Harvard Law-bound. Mr. Shelton stood up to thunderous applause, listening in disbelief and wishing his mother was present.
But to Mr. Shelton, being included in the speech was also complicated. Mr. Obama spent several minutes urging the Morehouse graduates to be good parents to their children.
“I was thinking, ‘You’re talking to an audience of 550 black men going on to some of the best professional schools in the country,’” Mr. Shelton said. The message seemed to “harken to stereotypes about black men not being good fathers, which I don’t think are true.”
Some political commencement speeches evoke far more than mixed emotions. In 2014, Condoleezza Rice had to withdraw from the Rutgers commencement after students staged a sit-in condemning her foreign policy at the university president’s office.
Kathleen Sebelius, former secretary of health and human services in the Obama administration, was interrupted by a heckler at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute in 2012, and a small group protested her appearance at the university’s front gate. Georgetown’s president said it was the decision of students at the institute to invite Ms. Sebelius as a speaker.
Bethune-Cookman University, a historically black university in Daytona Beach, Fla., had its 2017 commencement interrupted when some students turned their backs on the speaker, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. Student leaders said they were protesting comments Ms. DeVos made three months earlier that referred to historically black institutions as “pioneers” of “school choice”; they were established at the height of racial segregation.
For Fedrick Ingram, an older alumnus of the university who helped coordinate the protests, the disruption was the highlight of the ceremony. “It was electricity,” he said. “It was almost like 1968 with the Freedom Riders.” The university president had threatened to withhold degrees from students who disrupted the ceremony, but dozens booed Ms. DeVos anyway.
Political commencement speeches aren’t always mired in drama, but for many students and families they evoke a simpler question: Why draw politics into a day that’s otherwise festive and uncontroversial?
That was a question on Michael Agnello’s mind, when the University of Massachusetts, Amherst announced Elizabeth Warren as its undergraduate commencement speaker, in 2017. Mr. Agnello was a fan of the Massachusetts senator, but he knew his more conservative family members would be skeptical of the university’s decision. He decided to bring some levity to the day by creating “Elizabeth Warren’s Commencement Speech Drinking Game.”
The rules Mr. Agnello designed were straightforward. For a mention of “the disappearing middle class,” he advised readers to “fight fire with fire and rip that Fireball.” For a discussion of “student debt,” the rule was to “quell such injustice” with “a nip of Smirnoff.”
But he was not expecting the senator to stumble upon his game online and refer to it directly — which she did midway through her speech, with a reference to Fireball that delighted his conservative relatives.
“By the time we walked out of the football stadium I had 30 texts on my phone like, ‘Oh my God, I can’t believe that just happened,’” Mr. Agnello said. “My family was cracking up.”
Politicians, for their part, realize the difficulties of imparting wisdom to an audience with lots of competing concerns, from family drama to last hurrah hangovers. “It’s always a crapshoot with graduating seniors because a lot of them might have been out super late the night before,” said Cody Keenan, a speechwriter for Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama gave more than two dozen commencement speeches while in office — at military schools like West Point, state institutions like Ohio State and private ones like Barnard. Over years of commencement speechwriting, Mr. Keenan developed rules of the road. The speaker should be funny and self-deprecating. He should not over-index on the political, even in an election season.
Most important, Mr. Keenan said, is that speechwriters not fixate on producing a speech that becomes an instant classic.
“One of the mistakes people make is that they’re like, ‘I want to break through,’” he said. “‘I want to be Steve Jobs in 2005.’ Steve Jobs broke through because he was dying and explicitly talked about that.”
Kendra Grissom, who graduated from Spelman College last month, was looking forward to the many rites of commencement weekend: marching through the alumni arch, dressing up for senior soiree, passing down the class cymbal. Instead, she said, she spent it propped up in bed watching a parade of digital speeches from “Debbie Allen, some executive from Chase and a basketball player.”
But Mr. Obama offered some assurance for graduates like Ms. Grissom: “The disappointments of missing a live graduation, those will pass pretty quick,” he said. The greatest solace, according to the former president: “Not having to sit there and listen to a commencement speaker isn’t all that bad. Mine usually go on way too long.”
Amid protests, US faith leaders engage racism and politics – Rimbey Review
Amid protests, U.S. faith leaders engage racism and politics
NEW YORK — As days of anti-racism protests sparked by police killings push Americans toward a national reckoning, religious leaders are stepping more directly into the politics surrounding discrimination, entering into a dialogue that cuts across lines of faith and colour.
Groups from multiple denominations across Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths have publicly called for action against racism, aligning with peaceful demonstrators’ goals following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Even beyond those statements, the amount and diversity of religious involvement in the ongoing protests suggests a possible sea change for faith-driven engagement in racial justice issues.
“I’ve seen people of different faiths coming out and saying ‘this was wrong’ in ways I didn’t see before,” said Rev. Traci Blackmon, associate general minister of justice at the United Church of Christ and an early spiritual leader in the Black Lives Matter movement.
Religion’s role in struggles against racial bias long predates Floyd’s killing, which sparked mass demonstrations across the United States and even in other countries. But a notable shift has taken place this week.
Among those who’ve publicly backed protesters are clergy from the Southern Baptist Convention, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Orthodox and Reform Judaism.
Meanwhile Catholic and Episcopal leaders openly criticized President Donald Trump after peaceful demonstrators were forcefully cleared to make way for his brief visit and photo-op outside the historic St. John’s Church near the White House.
On Wednesday, Bishop LaTrelle Easterling, leader of the United Methodist Church’s Washington-area conference, joined Rev. Mariann Budde, the bishop of Washington’s Episcopal diocese, which includes St. Johns, and other faith leaders for a prayer vigil that aimed to orient the religious conversation around fighting racism.
“I think that all leaders that consider themselves to be religious or moral leaders have an obligation to rise and to speak to this moment, because institutional racism and supremacy cannot be dismantled by African American leaders alone,” said Easterling, who is African American. “Those who enjoy the privilege of those systems must rise.”
The vigil was initially set to take place at St. John’s but had to move to a nearby block after local law enforcement extended the security perimeter around the White House.
Budde, who expressed outrage Monday over Trump’s use of St. John’s as a backdrop, said white Americans need to engage more in “the realities of this country that we … are allowed to be blind to in ways that cost people of colour.”
Trump’s visit, in which he held up a Bible and said “we have a great country,” was at least in part intended as a show of solidarity with faith, according to the White House. But the manoeuvr nudged Budde and other religious leaders to wade further into the political realm, airing their disagreement.
McGregor retires from fighting – TSN
Public health working to contain latest COVID-19 outbreaks – WellandTribune.ca
Small asteroid to safely fly by Earth on Saturday – SHINE
- Tech10 hours ago
New release date for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Season 4 has been leaked – PCGamesN
- Sports18 hours ago
Donald Trump says Drew Brees shouldn't have backed off flag comments – CBC.ca
- Tech17 hours ago
iOS 14 roundup: What we know before WWDC 2020 – 9to5Mac
- Economy9 hours ago
Guardians of the World Economy Stagger From Rescue to Recovery – Yahoo Canada Finance
- Economy21 hours ago
Don’t Lose the Thread. The Economy Is Experiencing an Epic Collapse of Demand. – The New York Times
- Tech2 hours ago
Call of Duty Modern Warfare Season 4 release: Is this when Warzone Season 4 comes out? – Express
- Tech23 hours ago
Apple iOS 13.5.5 Can’t Come Soon Enough: Here Are 3 Reasons Why – Forbes
- Health14 hours ago
COVID-19 outbreak over at Royal Rose Place in Welland – Newstalk 610 CKTB (iHeartRadio)