Trump Wins: US Embraces Nativism & Rejects Liberalism. Our Path Forward w/ Ettingermentum | MR Live

Harris played it like she was protecting a lead, but it appears she never really had one.

Biden quitting late, removed the possibility of a real primary to get the best candidate, and left Harris with little time to run a campaign.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7RtPQvJfl4

Election takeaways: Trump’s decisive victory in a deeply divided nation

“Black voters — men and women — have been the bedrock of the Democratic Party, and in recent years, Latinos and young voters have joined them.
All three groups still preferred Democrat Kamala Harris. But preliminary data from AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 120,000 voters nationwide, suggested that Trump made significant gains.

Voters under age 30 represent a fraction of the total electorate, but about half of them supported Harris. That’s compared to the roughly 6 in 10 who backed Biden in 2020. Slightly more than 4 in 10 young voters went for Trump, up from about one-third in 2020.

At the same time, Black and Latino voters appeared slightly less likely to support Harris than they were to back Biden four years ago, according to AP VoteCast.

About 8 in 10 Black voters backed Harris, down from the roughly 9 in 10 who backed Biden. More than half of Hispanic voters supported Harris, but that was down slightly from the roughly 6 in 10 who backed Biden in 2020. Trump’s support among those groups appeared to rise slightly compared to 2020. Collectively, those small gains yielded an outsize outcome.”

“about half of Trump voters said inflation was the biggest issue factoring into their election decisions. About as many said that of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border, according to AP VoteCast.

He papered over the fact that the economy by many conventional metrics is robust — inflation is largely in check and wages are up — while border crossings have dropped dramatically. He talked right past the facts and through relentless repetition convinced voters.

He also sold them on the promise of the largest mass deportation effort in U.S. history, although he has not explained how such an operation would work. And he is threatening to impose massive tariffs on key products from China and other American adversaries, which economists warn could dramatically boost prices for average Americans.”

https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-presidential-election-takeaways-d0e4677f4cd53b4d2d8d18d674be5bf4

This Election Has Been Defined by Presidential Policy Pandering

“In June, former President Trump traveled to Las Vegas where he unexpectedly revealed a new tax idea: no taxes on tips. Why was Trump suddenly so keen on eliminating taxes on tipped earnings? Because he was trying to win the electorally important state of Nevada, which is home to a large number of Las Vegas-area service workers who rely heavily on tips for income.
This wasn’t a policy that fit into some broader framework or comprehensive theory of how taxes should work. It was an idea, floated in the middle of a rambling speech, targeting a specific, electorally important group, and offering them a benefit through the tax code.

Trump didn’t even try to pretend otherwise. At the June rally, he announced the plan, saying, “for those hotel workers and people that get tips you’re going to be very happy because when I get to office, we are going to not charge taxes on tips people (are) making.”

There’s a word for this: pandering. And it has defined many policy proposals from both the Trump and Harris campaigns this year.”

“Pandering is hardly new in politics or policy. Politicians have long sought to win constituencies and placate voters with narrowly targeted policies designed to address specific concerns. All politicians pander to some extent.

But in the past, pandering has at least sometimes been a voter outreach tool for politicians with bigger ambitions and clearer visions they intend to pursue. In 2024, there’s hardly anything else in play. The campaign agendas are barely more than marketing one-sheets: half-baked promises to sell to voters with the details to come later. The pandering is the point. ”

https://reason.com/2024/10/29/this-election-has-been-defined-by-presidential-policy-pandering/

Increase in Tariffs Would Trigger Global Economic Decline, Study Finds

“When asked why Harris has not distinguished herself by opposing these measures, Lincicome notes that supporting tariffs is just part of the “conventional wisdom in Washington today” even if polls may not completely support this assertion. “The view among the political experts is that elections are won or lost in a few places with a few votes,” and those critical “voters like tariffs.”
Given the IMF’s projections, bipartisan support for tariffs could lead to increased costs and slower economic growth for Americans regardless of who wins in November. ”

“former President Donald Trump floated a specific 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods alongside a 10 percent across-the-board tariff, which he recently increased to 20 percent. “It’s just what he thinks galvanized an audience,” Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics and Stiefel Trade Policy Center at the Cato Institute, tells Reason. “Let’s face it, none of this has any rigorous econometric modeling behind it, so it could be as simple as he thinks 20 percent sounds better.”

“Taking the candidates at their word, you would have to say that Trump’s tariffs would be orders of magnitude worse than what Kamala Harris might do, or say she will do,” Lincicome adds.”

https://reason.com/2024/10/29/increase-in-tariffs-would-trigger-global-economic-decline-study-finds/

Final Thoughts on the 2024 Presidential Election: A Conversation with Mark Cuban (Episode #390)

Final Thoughts on the 2024 Presidential Election: A Conversation with Mark Cuban (Episode #390)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqSB7EmMENs

A positive case for Kamala Harris

“I think you actually see this in the bit of daylight that emerged between her and the White House early in Biden’s term. I warned in March 2021 that Biden wasn’t thinking clearly about the asylum situation. His administration didn’t want a ton of asylum-seekers to show up at the border, but was also unwilling to actually say that or align their policies clearly with the goal of preventing it. The person who was willing to say it was Kamala Harris, who got saddled with the quasi-impossible task of ending the root causes of migration via diplomatic engagement with Central America, but who managed to fly to Guatemala and actually say the thing — “do not come” — that should have been the administration’s top to bottom message.
The Groups and media leftists yelled at her, the Biden administration didn’t back her up, and now, three years later, her biggest political vulnerability is still her association with Biden’s efforts to appease the Groups. The good news on the substance of immigration policy is that Biden eventually changed course, and now crossings are lower than they were at the end of Trump’s term.

Harris has also clearly said that she wants to sign the border security bill that Trump quashed for his own personal political game. Immigration groups originally revolted, not so much at the substance of the bill (which is good!) but at the idea of doing anything on border security detached from a path to citizenship for the long-resident undocumented. Biden belatedly shifted Democrats off this bit of Groups-think by linking the border security measures to aid for Ukraine. But Harris is now advocating for border security in a freestanding way.

I personally would love to see comprehensive immigration reform, but it’s clear that the construct ran aground some time ago. And Harris has been steering, from the get-go, toward a more sensible approach that involves considering individual immigration policy changes on the merits. Back in 2019, she co-sponsored a skilled migration bill with Mike Lee at a time when the idea of doing this detached from comprehensive reform was anathema to The Groups.”

“I sincerely understand why people with very right-wing policy views might decide they want to overlook Trump’s well-known flaws and roll the dice on the possibility that he does something catastrophic. But if you’re a normal person with some mixed feelings about the parties, I think you will be dramatically happier with the results that come from President Harris negotiating with congressional Republicans over exactly which tax breaks should be extended rather than a re-empowered Trump backed by a 6-3 Supreme Court and supportive majorities in Congress.”

https://www.slowboring.com/p/a-positive-case-for-kamala-harris

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris Keep Making Economically Illiterate Promises

“Trump fans applauded when he said he’ll eliminate taxes on tips. Then Harris proposed that, too. Her audience applauded. Trump then proposed not taxing overtime. More applause.
But narrow tax exemptions are bad policy.

In my new video, economist Allison Schrager explains how they create nasty, unintended consequences.

“No one likes tipping,” says Schrager, “but all of a sudden, you’ll have to pay tips for everything.…More people will be paid in tips.””

“Trump’s proposal to eliminate tax on overtime would reduce hiring.

“Employers may hire fewer people so they can give more overtime to employees they have already,” says Schrager.”

“rent control is destructive. “Sounds really good,” says Schrager. “But all it means is that people are less inclined to rent to you.”

“Why would you enter a market where it seems like the government is actively trying to hurt you?” Adds Mercatus Center economist Salim Furth. “You’re providing an essential service, something human beings need to live, and the government views you as a hostile outsider. I wouldn’t want to bring any service into a market like that.”

Argentina’s new libertarian president just scrapped rent controls. The supply of rental apartments doubled, and prices declined by 40 percent! That’s good policy.

But Harris proposes the opposite!”

“Trump’s (and Joe Biden’s) tariffs don’t just punish China, they reduce choice and raise prices in America.

“Free trade is good!” says Schrager. “It brings lower prices, making our own industries more dynamic, raising our income.”

“But trade does take away some Americans’ jobs,” I point out.

“But it creates a lot of other new jobs,” she replies.

It sure does. More and better jobs than those lost through trade.”

“She proposes giving “first-time homebuyers” $25,000. Again, her fans applaud.

Schrager explains, “free” money from government doesn’t increase the supply of homes. When every buyer has $25,000 more, “they just bid up prices even higher!””

https://reason.com/2024/10/16/donald-trump-and-kamala-harris-keep-making-economically-illiterate-promises/

Trump and Harris Both Favor Tax Hikes That Would Hurt Ordinary Americans

“The Tax Foundation estimates that a 10 percent general tariff “would raise taxes on American consumers by more than $300 billion a year,” “reduce the size of the U.S. economy by 0.7 percent,” and “eliminate 505,000 full-time equivalent jobs.” Retaliation could “further reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4 percent and eliminate another 322,000 full-time equivalent jobs.”

Trump’s proposed tariffs, including a 60 percent levy on Chinese goods, “would reduce after-tax incomes by about 3.5 percent for those in the bottom half of the income distribution,” the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates. They “would cost a typical household in the middle of the income distribution at least $1,700 in increased taxes each year.”

Just as Trump ignores those costs, Harris wants voters to believe that raising the corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent is simply a matter of “ensur[ing] the wealthiest Americans and the largest corporations pay their fair share.” But that is true only if you overlook the broader economic impact of that change, which would hurt non-wealthy Americans as employees, consumers, and investors.

“Studies have shown that the corporate income tax is the most harmful tax for economic growth,” the Tax Foundation warns. On the flip side, recent research indicates that the Trump-backed 2017 reduction in this tax rate, which moved the U.S. from the high end among industrialized countries to the middle of the pack, “significantly boosted domestic investment.”

By raising the cost of doing business in the United States, a higher corporate tax rate inhibits investment, drives down wage and benefit growth, encourages offshoring of jobs, and reduces the return on retirement savings. “Under a 28 percent corporate rate,” the Tax Foundation estimates, “GDP would fall by $1.84” for “every $1 of higher revenue.””

https://reason.com/2024/09/11/trump-and-harris-both-favor-taxe-hikes-that-would-hurt-ordinary-americans/

On Abortion, Harris and Trump Were Both Right and Both Infuriatingly Wrong

“Trump is likely referencing comments made by former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam in 2019. Northam was discussing what happens if a woman delivers a nonviable fetus or a baby with life-threatening deformities. “The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said. Some Republicans ran with this comment to suggest that Northam supported “post-birth abortions,” when what he was really discussing was palliative care for babies born fatal or likely fatal conditions.
Trump also kept suggesting..that the Roe v. Wade regime meant states had to allow unfettered abortion through nine months of pregnancy. But the Roe regime actually allowed states to significantly restrict abortion in later months, and the vast majority did. Then—as is still the case now—only a handful of states opted out of setting legal limits on what point in a pregnancy abortion was banned. Even in these states, the lack of a legal prohibition on later-term abortions does not necessarily mean physicians would actually perform later-term abortions, nor that women were generally seeking them without good reason, like a pregnancy that was life-threatening or a fetus that was nonviable.”

https://reason.com/2024/09/11/on-abortion-harris-and-trump-were-both-right-and-both-infuriatingly-wrong/