Religious Freedom in Indiana Attacked By Famous, Rich Liberals | ZoNation
Famous, rich, wealthy, influential liberals, from Cher to Kareem Jabbar using their status to oppose RFRA. They #39;re cultural icons, who #39;s backward world view is valued by millions. Also here #39;s...
By: PJ Media
Original post:
Religious Freedom in Indiana Attacked By Famous, Rich Liberals | ZoNation - Video
The federal Liberals are still at the top of the Nanos Party Power Index, but the New Democrats are on a definite upward trend, according to the latest week-over-week numbers.
Over the past six weeks, Thomas Mulcairs New Democrats have climbed two points in the Nanos Index, while Stephen Harpers Conservatives have dipped two points out of a possible 100:
See the latest charts and graphs in our Nanos on the Numbers home page
Supporters jumping ship?
The New Democrats have picked up momentum in the key battlegrounds of Ontario and the Prairies, two regions where Conservatives have faltered over the past month or so.
Some Conservative voters might be shifting their support to the NDP, or potentially using the polls as a way to register their dissatisfaction with the Tories.
The orange upswing is also likely recognition of the job Mulcair and the New Democrats have done hammering the Conservative party over the anti-ISIS mission expansion to Syria and the anti-terrorism bill.
While the New Democrats are trending positively, its still too early to say whether well be looking at a three-horse race for the October federal election.
The Duffy effect
The trial of suspended Senator Mike Duffy began Tuesday, which could potentially impact the polls over the next several weeks.
Read this article:
New Democrats moving up on Nanos Index, Liberals still on top
23 hours ago
While greater knowledge alone is unlikely to overcome the political divide on climate change, conservatives and liberals become less polarized when the perception of harm increases, according to a new study by the University of Michigan and Ohio State University.
Lead author Sol Hart, U-M assistant professor of communication studies, and colleagues examined how attention to science and political news may influence the public's knowledge, risk perception and support for climate change policies. The data came from a nationally representative survey involving more than 1,200 people funded by the School of Communication at Ohio State University and the National Science Foundation.
Paying attention to science news reports on climate change increased knowledge for both conservatives and liberals, the study found. Attention to science news also raised conservative perceptions of harm closer to what liberals believed.
In contrast, increased attention to political news was not associated with knowledge gains for liberals or conservatives. Attention to political news did not impact perceptions of harm for liberals, but lowered perceptions of harm for conservatives.
The direct effect of knowledge on policy support was positive for liberals but negative for conservatives. In contrast, increased perceptions of harm were associated with more policy support for liberals and conservatives.
The results suggest some promising pathways for science communicators, Hart said.
"For conservative audiences, employing science/environmental news platforms to highlight the potential harm and risks of climate change, rather than focusing on factual knowledge, may increase policy support among this segment," Hart said.
Furthermore, improving the accuracy of climate change coverage in political news outlets and reducing false-balancewhich provides equal weight to climate advocates and deniersespecially in those outlets that lean conservative, may diminish the direct negative influence of political news on perceived harm and policy support exhibited in the analysis, Hart said.
Hart and colleagues noted that their study measured policy attitudes but did not observe voting behavior.
See original here:
Public views vary on climate change based on science, political news platforms
Michael Adams is president of the Environics Institute for Survey Research.
As this years federal election approaches, the Conservative government is increasingly crystallizing its offer to voters around a single promise: security. The economy has been removed from the partys display window, replaced by the global fight against ISIS and its sympathizers, some abroad, some next door.
For the government, a focus on keeping Canadians safe from terror is a strong play: fear may well be humans most powerful emotion. Academics such as Jonathan Haidt and George Lakoff have argued that conservatives and liberals have distinct sensibilities and seek different kinds of emotional satisfaction from politics. Lakoff, for instance, describes a conservative mindset that values leadership from strong, paternal figures and keeping the brood safe is an essential part of the job description for any strong papa. (In exchange, dad gets loyalty, deference to his authority, and in some cases a tie or patterned socks at Christmas.)
One drawback of the Conservatives laser-like focus on terror and security, however, is that it cedes so much other territory to challengers. It gives an opening for the Liberals and the NDP to make noise not only about their own traditional issues (social programs, the environment, and so on) but also about some issues that the Conservatives usually claim as their own. How might the Liberals or NDP show that they should be taken seriously not only by their own stalwarts but by Canadians who have voted Conservative in recent elections, especially those who gave Stephen Harpers party its surprising majority in 2011?
How about advocating for veterans?
The Harper government embraces military symbolism, and a robust armed forces that can fight evil and keep Canadians safe is certainly part of the Conservatives strong-father model of leadership. But in recent years many Canadian veterans have expressed dissatisfaction with the governments handling of their services and supports. For many, the highway of heroes seems to lead to a less exalted place at the end of the road.
Most Canadians would wish to see their military personnel honoured not only when theyre deployed, but also when they return from doing what the country has asked of them, especially if they have been injured physically or psychologically in the course of their duties. An opposition party that demonstrated a concrete commitment to meeting veterans health care and employment needs even if it were not a party that voters associated automatically with fighting capabilities might well appeal to conservative-leaning Canadians disappointed by recent headlines.
How about celebrating old-fashioned citizenship?
Civic education and pride in citizenship were once rather conservative ideals. They were connected to the patriotism and loyalty to country that right-leaning people have often claimed as special virtues. Recently, however, Canadas immigration program has taken on a more transactional character. It has become more strongly associated with short-term labour trends than with long-term nation-building. And indeed, a recent analysis has indicated that the rate at which immigrants become citizens has declined.
Despite some concerns about cultural integration (a process that citizenship and belonging only help), Canadians remain positive about immigration and take pride in multiculturalism. Shifting the immigration frame away from this quarters want ads and toward meaningful citizenship, civic participation, and inclusive nation-building might just appeal to some Canadian patriots who believe countries and their citizens do best when their responsibilities toward each other are durable and deeply felt.
View original post here:
Three ways Liberals and NDP can win over conservative voters
Lawrence Summers has no wish to become embroiled in this years federal election. He may anyway.
The former treasury secretary to Bill Clinton is preaching a gospel of inclusive prosperity. Justin Trudeau is listening.
His ideas are in the mix, said a senior Liberal, speaking on background. If those ideas which emphasize increased government investments rather than the Conservative mantra of balanced budgets and lower taxes become part and parcel of the Liberal platform, they will offer a stark either/or contrast between the two parties in the election slated for Oct. 19.
Mr. Summers was in Toronto on Monday to speak at the Rotman School of Management at an event hosted by Canada 2020, a progressive think tank. The former director of the National Economic Council in the first Obama administration repeated a message he has been delivering on both sides of the border over the past couple of years.
In an era of low growth, rising income inequality and bargain-basement interest rates, it makes no sense for governments to shy away from needed investments in physical and social infrastructure, he believes.
While Mr. Summers stressed he didnt want to get involved in partisan Canadian politics, he advised against the balanced budget that Finance Minister Joe Oliver has committed to delivering later this month come hell or cheap oil.
The case for surpluses is greater when economic growth is accelerating than when it is decelerating, he said in a sit-down with The Globe and Mail. To the extent that the present moment is one of transitorily bad conditions because of the collapse of oil prices, coupled with low demand, low interest rates and deflationary rather than inflationary pressures, this would not seem the moment to elevate fiscal discipline, he maintained.
But the Conservatives are determined to impose exactly that discipline. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly chastised provincial governments, especially the Ontario Liberal government of Kathleen Wynne, for running deficits at a time when the economy is not in recession.
At a speech in Davos, Switzerland, in 2012, Mr. Harper offered a rebuttal to Mr. Summerss way of thinking by warning political leaders against falling into the trap of too much sovereign debt, too much general willingness to have standards and benefits beyond our ability or even willingness to pay for them.
But Mr. Summers argues, as Mr. Trudeau has also argued, that combatting climate change, upgrading infrastructure, investing in education and training and other government programs will not only increase demand and create jobs, but bolster confidence in the future among stressed middle-class taxpayers.
Link:
Liberals looking closely at inclusive prosperity in contrast to federal Tories