This November, Voters Chose Price Tag Over Awkward Conversation

Authored by Ed Goeas & Celinda Lake via RealClearPolitics,

Discussing politics on Thanksgiving is a tradition that many of us could live without, but can’t seem to get away from. It’s especially poignant every four years after the tidal shifts accompanying presidential elections. This year, we saw remarkable outcomes, most notably that voters prioritized bringing down the cost of their Thanksgiving meal over bringing the family together for a civil conversation.

Ok, that is an oversimplification, but let’s take a look at the numbers.

The two of us, a Republican and a Democrat, have been conducting polling together around civility in our political discourse for decades. For the last five years, we’ve partnered with the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service to dive into just what this means for the state of our politics. We conducted our most recent poll of 800 likely voters right after the outcomes of the 2024 elections. We asked voters which candidate they believed ran a more divisive campaign, who messaged their ability to get things done more effectively, which candidate they thought represented their shared values the best, and much more.

We learned that many voters found Vice President Harris to be someone who is a unifier and ran a less negative campaign as opposed to President Trump, but President Trump had advantages in key areas that propelled him over the top. He was able to effectively message himself as the candidate who addressed the kitchen table issues that most stood out to voters. We’ve seen in exit poll after exit poll that the economy was the issue most on people’s minds on Election Day, and when you look at our findings, you see a pattern that reflects President Trump’s win.

When asked, “Which candidate is talking to you about this issue,” we see some of the dynamics in the race represented. Vice President Harris outperformed President Trump in addressing abortion, protecting Democracy, sharing my values, and caring about people like me. Fifty-two percent found that Vice President Harris was the candidate who better messaged bringing the country together. Conversely, voters found that President Trump more effectively talked about the economy, inflation, and immigration, and a majority thought he would be better at getting things done, but most do not expect him to be a unifier in the White House.

Clearly, voters were less concerned about civility than they were about costs. The overall outcome has surprisingly resulted in a drop in political tensions based on the measure we have used for the last five years – largely driven by Republicans who are feeling relief after Election Day. We measure tension by asking folks where they feel the country is on a scale of one to 100, with one being no division at all and 100 being civil war. We saw a four-point drop since our last poll in March from 70 to 66, the lowest mark in the last five years that we have done this poll. Division scores are highest among Democrats at 70, while independents are at about the total sample’s mean (66), and Republicans see the least division (61). These scores reflect a significant 14-point drop for Republicans, specifically from March, with independents remaining largely the same and Democrats seeing a small, two-point uptick.

Of particular note is the hope respondents share about a brighter future and the possibilities of collaboration between the parties. Despite President Trump’s “trifecta’ control, 95% of those polled agreed with the statement, “I want President Trump, Republicans in Congress, and Democrats in Congress to work together to solve the major problems facing this country.” Also, 82% of respondents agreed, “It will be good for the country if President Trump and Congress compromise to find solutions even if this means I will not always get everything I want.” In what could be a reflection of these hopes, when asked how much division they expect in the country a year from now, respondents predicted a 61 out of 100, a more than 12-point decrease led largely by Republicans in projected division from September 2023.

So, how does this impact your Thanksgiving meal this year? Prices are projected to drop this year, pretty significantly, dropping nearly $10 compared to this time last year when the average cost for a Thanksgiving meal was $67.84, all the way to $58.08. Your Republican relative might take a minute to brag that this is the market reacting to President Trump’s win, but your Democrat relative might say that it’s a sign that Bidenomics is working and the country went down the wrong path on Election Day.

Either way, we know that politics will be debated this Thanksgiving in many homes across the country. We only hope that it’s a little more civil this time around.

Ed Goeas is president and CEO of The Tarrance Group, a Republican political survey research and strategy team.

Celinda Lake, president of Lake Strategies, is a political strategist serving as tactician and senior adviser.

Loading…

Originally Posted at; https://www.zerohedge.com//

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
December 7, 2024
2 views

The Miserable Cost Of An Open Border

Authored by Seth Barron via RealClearPolitics,

The Biden-Harris experiment in dissolving the U.S. border has wrought massive changes to American society, most of which will not be understood for years, if not decades. Since 2021, U.S. border officials have had at least 10 million “encounters” with migrants, many of whom were allowed to enter the country. There is no telling how many more aliens entered the country without encountering enforcement agents. The population of the United States may have increased by as much as 15 million people in just a few years.

This massive flow of humanity crosses multiple national borders, involves every mode of transportation, accounts for billions of dollars paid in fees to smugglers, and describes a fantastically complex economy of suffering and hope. In an effort to get a handle on this human tide, noted muckraker James O’Keefe – known for his hidden camera “gotcha” interviews with abortionists, media executives, progressive nonprofit executives, and other degenerate types – traces the migrant onrush from its source, and seeks to trace the machinery of profit and influence that is conducting it from great removes.

“Line In The Sand,” the resulting documentary, is a remarkable and humane exposition, revealing perspectives and images American audiences have mostly been prevented from seeing. O’Keefe and his intrepid team begin on the U.S. side of the Mexican border, where we witness migrants crossing the border through holes that their guides have cut in a fence that serves as a target as much as a barrier. Infrared cameras show dozens of illegal aliens streaming toward “pick-up” vehicles on the U.S. side while smugglers – presumably cartel members – a few feet away taunt O’Keefe and his group. “What if I were to run up to them right now, what would happen?” O’Keefe asks his guide. “I would highly advise you against that,” he is told, in a classic understatement.

The fact that coyotes and other human traffickers are paid to assist northbound migrants with their passage is no scandal; we all know what their motivations are and why they are doing what they do. But O’Keefe documents multiple examples of U.S. Border Patrol agents standing idly by while illegal aliens cross, virtually under their noses. “Why aren’t you doing anything?” he asks. “Have a good day, guys,” a border agent desultorily responds before driving off in the general direction of the episode. Later, a migrant stands in front of a Border Patrol truck, clearly trying to alert the agents of his intention to surrender, but is studiously ignored until O’Keefe and his team call their attention to him.

There is a kind of sad comedy in the operations of U.S. border security, and O’Keefe is not unsympathetic to the absurd position that border agents have been put in. Trained to defend the national border and to serve as the first line of defense of American soil, these agents have been recommissioned as a perverse Welcome Wagon for illegal aliens, charged with making their undocumented and uninvited entrance to the United States as commodious as possible.

Looking to get deeper into the heart of this migratory avalanche, O’Keefe went deep into Mexico, to the city of Irapuato, about 150 miles northwest of Mexico City. Irapuato is a popular railway junction where thousands of migrants climb aboard “La Bestia,” or “The Beast,” a cargo train that chugs northward toward the United States. In the film’s most remarkable footage, O’Keefe and his team join with migrants, mostly from South and Central America, to ride The Beast, also known as “el Tren del Muerto,” or the Train of Death. O’Keefe talks to the migrants without condescension, asking them their destinations and what they plan to do when they get there, and their concerns about the perilous nature of the journey. We see the film crew race to jump on a moving train and clamber on top to sit in a pile of coal; O’Keefe is shocked at how truly dangerous this small element of the trip is and sympathizes with the migrants’ difficult choices. These scenes are among the film’s most affecting, along with the crew’s random encounter with a little girl who had just crossed the border after journeying from Guatemala by herself. There is a human dimension to illegal immigration, and O’Keefe does not ignore it.

However, there is also an impersonal dimension to this massive population transfer, and O’Keefe determinedly aims to uncover it – to put a face to the institutions and administrators that benefit from the rough injection of millions of people into American society. From government agents to bus companies to nonprofit resettlement groups to private contractors running huge, walled compounds housing thousands of children, O’Keefe doggedly tries to penetrate the mechanics of a system that resolutely hides itself behind a screen of silence, usually in the name of “safety” and “privacy.”

Some of the film’s more comical moments pertain to these segments, such as when the team follows some just-arrived Chinese migrants in San Diego to an employment agency, where other Chinese aliens, already in the country for several months, complain that it’s much harder to live in the United States than they had imagined. O’Keefe tries to sniff out a connection between the owner of the agency and more powerful actors, but it emerges that there really isn’t much going on; in fact, the owner asks O’Keefe if he knows of a way to apply for government grants.

Elsewhere, O’Keefe tries to get information about the operations of several huge residential centers for unaccompanied minors and tries to spin their refusal to give him access to the centers or submit to interviews as evidence of the existence of vast, government-funded child sex trafficking networks. But it seems more likely, though no less troubling, that the open borders policy of the last four years has created a tremendous humanitarian crisis of alien children roaming the continent by themselves, and the government is probably trying to keep them from becoming prey to sex traffickers while they sort out where to send them. Though O’Keefe does not uncover a salacious network of child predators, his vigorous pursuit of the truth does reveal the existence of a large, shadowy, government-funded, and lucrative system of child “welfare.”

So, “Line In The Sand” is correct in the larger sense that billions of dollars are being spent managing this human flow, and many people are getting rich off of it. The last thing these parasitical administrators of the nonprofit industrial complex want is for the border to close. O’Keefe does a great job of capturing in real time the corruption of a local New York City nonprofit called La Jornada, whose leader, Pedro Rodriguez, evidently perpetrates fraud, demanding fees for services that the city provides for free. O’Keefe also sends a Spanish-speaking reporter undercover into the Roosevelt Hotel, New York City’s main processing center for newly-arrived migrants, which offers him free housing, medical care, and even airplane tickets, even though the reporter explains that he has no identification of any sort. How, O’Keefe asks, in our post 9/11 security-obsessed era, are we to make sense of a system that admits millions of unvetted foreigners into the country, and then offers to fly them anywhere they care to go?

“Line In The Sand” is rough in parts, but intentionally so. Its subject is so sprawling and tangled that a neat and clean representation would be a lie. Even with a nine-figure budget – which this film assuredly did not have – a documentary about the border and the 30 million-footed human swarm that has crossed it would be messy and incomplete. But James O’Keefe and his small team have done something remarkable. They have taken on the decade’s biggest story, given it form, and preserved the humanity of its subjects. It is worth watching.

Seth Barron is a writer in New York and author of the forthcoming “Weaponized from Humanix.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/07/2024 – 17:30