Mediaboss Marketing

Public opinion is now in favor of the protesters who have spent the last three weeks advocating for police reform in response to the death of George Floyd, a black man killed by a police officer in Minneapolis.

This is notable, because public opinion around the protests was initially split. But as the protests have grown larger and spread to more parts of the country, theres evidence they have become more popular. For instance, in a Morning Consult survey conducted June 10-12, 64 percent of Americans said they supported the protests, up 10 percentage points from the first time the pollster asked in late May and early June.

[Related: Theres A Huge Gap In How Republicans And Democrats See Discrimination]

In fact, the protests are so popular that theyre now supported by majorities of Democrats and Republicans. But this bipartisan support masks some of the enormous differences that still exist between the two parties on issues of race and discrimination.

For starters, theres a pretty big gap in just how strongly Democrats and Republicans back the protests. In last weeks Economist/YouGov poll, for instance, 73 percent of Democrats said they strongly approve of the nonviolent protests, compared with just 27 percent of Republicans. And according to the most recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll, Democrats and Republicans are also fairly split on how peaceful the protests have been, how long they should last and whats driving them. In that poll, Democrats were 40 points more likely than Republicans to say that the protests have been mostly peaceful and three-quarters of Republicans said they wanted the protests to stop now, compared to less than one-quarter of Democrats. Republicans were also 44 points more likely than Democrats to say the protests were primarily motivated by long-standing biases against the police, whereas most Democrats said the protests were motivated by a genuine desire to hold police accountable.

The fact that Democrats and Republicans are so polarized when it comes to the motives driving the protests is important because it conveys just how differently Republicans and Democrats view racism in America.

In its polling, YouGov asked respondents a number of questions on whether systemic racism was a problem or whether police killings signaled a bigger issue within American life. As you can see in the chart below, Democrats and Republicans are divided, with as much as a 60-point gap separating them on some of these issues. Recent surveys by CBS, CNN and Monmouth University have found equally large partisan divides on race and policing as well.

The thing is, public opinion about race hasnt always been this polarized.

In fact, some attitudes about race were entirely unrelated to partisanship before Barack Obama was elected president in 2008. But after he was elected, racial attitudes and party identification became increasingly intertwined to the extent that by 2012, opposition to interracial relationships or overtly negative views of African Americans predicted whether someone identified as Republican for the first time in decades.

[Related: Do You Know How Divided White And Black Americans Are On Racism?]

Of course, Donald Trumps political rise took this growing partisan polarization over race to new heights. Democrats, in particular, quickly consolidated their views in reaction to Trumps offensive statements about racial and ethnic minorities.

CBS News polls from the last 10 years underscore just how much Democrats have changed their opinion of systemic racism in a relatively short period of time. As you can see in the chart below, it wasnt that long ago when Democrats and Republicans responded pretty similarly to the question of whether white Americans had an easier time of getting ahead.

Democrats, however, are now much more likely to agree that societal advantages exist for white Americans than they were five years ago. A similar shift has happened on questions of police brutality and institutional racism within the criminal justice system. For instance, the percentage of Democrats who think that the police disproportionately use deadly force against black Americans increased by more than 30 points since CBS News first asked the question in August 2014. Meanwhile, Republicans views have remained steady just 24 percent think the police disproportionately use deadly force against African Americans.

Its certainly not surprising, then, that Democrats and Republicans are so divided over race and policing after Floyds death. The upshot of this growing polarization is that Democrats and Republicans increasingly inhabit separate realities about race in America, worlds apart on everything from the causes of racial inequality to the Confederate flags meaning to the N-words offensiveness to the value of teaching black history in schools.

[Related: How Black Americans View Their Racial Identity]

The current partisan divide over race may be predictable, but its still incredibly important especially considering this is a presidential election year. Race has long been an effective wedge issue for the Republican Party, as demonstrated by the 2016 election, when Republicans split up the Democrats diverse coalition of nonwhite voters, white racially liberal voters and racially conservative white voters. But after 12 years of Obama and Trump, racially conservative Democrats have mostly defected or converted. That means Democrats are now united about many of the racial issues that once splintered the party.

Take the Black Lives Matter movement, for example. In a June 2016 Pew Research Center poll, only 64 percent of white Democrats and 20 percent of white Republicans supported the Black Lives Matter movement. Those numbers are now up to 92 percent among white Democrats and 37 percent among white Republicans in the latest Pew survey.

[Related: Public Opinion Of The Black Lives Matter Movement Has Shifted. What Happens Next?]

The fact that Republicans experienced a nearly 20-point increase in support since 2014 doesnt bode well for them either, considering polls at this point indicate that it is Democrats and not Republicans who are now more unified on many issues of race. In fact, congressional Democrats efforts to pass sweeping legislation to help remedy some of the racial biases in the criminal justice system could even be an effective racial wedge issue for the Democratic Party heading into November.

More here:
Republicans And Democrats Agree On The Protests But Not Why People Are Protesting - FiveThirtyEight

The recommendation is part of a new report issued by Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee Monday, which outlines the findings of a months-long investigation into the origins of the outbreak and Beijing's efforts to "conceal the spread and novel nature of the virus."

"After months of investigating, it's become crystal clear the Chinese Communist Party's cover-up of the coronavirus, especially in the early days of the outbreak, played a significant role in turning what could have been a local epidemic into a global pandemic," Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, leader of the GOP China task force, said in a statement to CNN.

"And, unfortunately, the World Health Organization under the leadership of Director General Tedros (Adhanom Ghebreyesus) only exacerbated the problem by repeatedly ignoring warnings about the severity of the virus, including from their own health experts, while at the same time parroting the CCP's propaganda without independently confirming their claims," he added.

"While I join the president in his frustration with the WHO under Tedros' leadership, I think we can affect more change within the organization as a member. I was pleased to hear NSA {Robert} O'Brien say the U.S. 'would consider coming back' once necessary reforms were enacted," McCaul told CNN.

Investigating the origins of the coronavirus outbreak has become a partisan issue in recent months as top Trump administration officials have attempted to publicly blame China, and the WHO, for the outbreak spreading to the US as it faces criticism for its own response.

However, aides involved in compiling Monday's GOP report are making clear that the findings are not just a political diversion tactic, insisting they should be reviewed separately from any oversight of the administration's domestic response. A Democratic committee aide told CNN that it was unclear if members or staff had reviewed the report released Monday.

The investigation primarily involved a thorough review of open source reporting and the recommendations were made after consulting the State Department and key allies, committee aides told CNN, adding that the probe only covers matters under the panel's jurisdiction.

But while the GOP-led probe determined that there is evidence supporting many of the allegations made by US officials, investigators ultimately disagreed with the administration's decision to withdraw from the WHO, breaking with President Donald Trump, who announced just last month that the US would do just that.

Instead, the report calls for an international investigation into the WHO's actions and for Tedros to resign.

"Director General Tedros has failed in his duties as the head of the World Health Organization. Until Tedros is no longer the head of the WHO, I do not believe the United States should contribute any additional voluntary funds," McCaul said.

On Monday, the WHO confirmed that the US still one of its member states.

"Yes, the United States is still a member of the -- a member state -- of the World Health Organization," Tedros said when asked about the relationship during a media briefing in Geneva on Monday.

Will Trump reverse his decision?

It remains to be seen if Monday's report has any impact on Trump's decision to cut ties with the WHO but committee aides told CNN that its recommendations are based on exhaustive conversations with several key US allies who agree the US should remain a member of the WHO.

The hope, aides said, is that the US can build an international coalition to enact significant changes at the WHO, which has faced questions about its independence given China's rising wealth and power.

Critics point to the WHO's effusive praise of China's response to the pandemic. Organization officials have defended their early actions when it came to fighting the coronavirus, noting that much was unknown about the virus back in January.

That argument is echoed throughout Monday's GOP report, which includes a list of unanswered questions for WHO officials who aides told CNN have failed to respond to multiple letters from McCaul.

Trump's decision to permanently terminate the US relationship with the WHO follows a years-long pattern of skepticism of world organizations, with the President claiming that the US is being taken advantage of.

The President has questioned US funding to the United Nations and NATO, withdrawn from the Paris climate accord and repeatedly criticized the World Trade Organization.

Trump has also said that if the WHO had acted appropriately, he could have instituted a travel ban on people coming from China sooner.

But health experts, US lawmakers and world leaders have expressed concern over defunding the organization amid a pandemic.

After Trump's announcement last month, a WHO spokesperson told CNN, "We have no comment to offer at this point."

Chinese government bears 'overwhelming responsibility'

Ultimately, however, the report alleges that the Chinese government bears responsibility for failing to warn the world before the outbreak spread out of control, infecting people on nearly every continent, killing hundreds of thousands and leaving many more isolated.

China had enough information to warrant a full scale public health response as early as mid-December of last year but government officials attempted to keep the spread of cases quiet, the report argues.

"Based on an examination of the early stages of the outbreak, efforts to conceal the spread and novel nature of the virus, failures to share accurate information as required by international law, and the suppression of voices seeking to warn the world, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) bears overwhelming responsibility for allowing a local outbreak to become a global pandemic," it reads.

"In sum, the COVID-19 global pandemic could have been prevented if the CCP acted in a transparent and responsible manner," the report adds.

Currently, the earliest case identified by Chinese authorities can be traced back to November 17, 2019, in the city of Wuhan, according to the GOP investigation, which notes that the cause of the virus remains unknown but is "believed to likely be the result of a zoonotic spillover event."

As the virus began to spread throughout Wuhan in November and early December, Chinese officials did not report the emerging outbreak to international health officials despite regulations that were implemented following the SARS pandemic in 2003 requiring them to do so.

Despite public reports to the contrary, the Chinese government also did not directly notify WHO about signs of the emerging coronavirus outbreak in late December, one of several instances in which Beijing violated international law as part of a sweeping cover-up of the pandemic's origins, according to the report.

Instead, WHO officials first learned about an initial cluster of atypical pneumonia cases in the Chinese city of Wuhan from online posts that were picked up by a "US-based open-access platform for early intelligence about infectious disease outbreaks," according to the GOP document, which cites public remarks made by to Dr. Michael Ryan, the executive director of the WHO's Health Emergencies Program on April 20.

"WHO headquarters in Geneva instructed the WHO China Country Office to seek verification of these reports from the PRC's government. Despite public reporting to the contrary, the PRC never notified the WHO about the outbreak in Wuhan," the GOP report reads.

But Ryan's comments were not widely reported by Western media outlets and the WHO has done little to make clear that they were never approached by the Chinese government.

Last month, Trump said that China had not properly reported information it had about the coronavirus to the World Health Organization and said China had pressured the WHO to "mislead the world."

"Chinese officials ignored their reporting obligations to the World Health Organization and pressured the World Health Organization to mislead the world when the virus was first discovered by Chinese authorities," Trump said. "Countless lives have been taken and profound economic hardship has been inflicted all around the globe."

Chinese officials have repeatedly pushed back on allegations that they are to blame for the outbreak and amplified unfounded conspiracy theories about the virus' origins.

Still no evidence virus escaped from Wuhan lab

Trump has repeatedly pointed the finger at China and the WHO while mostly giving himself rave reviews for its handling of the pandemic, despite Covid-19 testing fumbles and a national stockpile short on supplies when they were needed most.

Last month, the President undercut a rare on-the-record statement from his own intelligence community hours earlier by claiming he had seen evidence that gives him a "high degree of confidence" the novel coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, but declined to provide details to back up his assertion.

Despite warnings from scientists and intelligence professionals that the US may never know the precise origin of the virus, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also pushed the intelligence community for precise details about the origin of the virus, CNN has learned.

As a result, intelligence officials are facing enormous pressure to determine whether the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, two sources familiar with their frustrations told CNN. While the intelligence community has been wary to share details about the demands coming from the Trump administration, officials have told allies that the situation on the inside is alarming.

Assessments by scientists and those circulated among US intelligence-sharing allies have posited that it is "highly unlikely" the virus originated in a lab.

The US intelligence community has said it is looking into both possibilities and Monday's GOP report reiterates that neither the virus' origin nor patient zero are currently known.

Monday's report does, however, note that there are lingering safety questions involving the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a facility that has often been linked to theories about the outbreak's origins.

While the report makes clear that legitimate questions about the facility's security are "not evidence that the ongoing pandemic is the result of a release, accidental or deliberate, from the lab, or what the staffing status was at the time of the outbreak of COVID-19 in late 2019, it is important to consider these concerns in light of the PRC's history with lab accidents."

CNN's Jacqueline Howard and Jennifer Hansler contributed to this report.

Original post:
Republicans urge Trump not to terminate relationship with World Health Organization - CNN

Recognizing the threat in Iowa, the presidents re-election campaign spent more than $400,000 on TV ads in the state in May and June, according to Advertising Analytics, a tracking firm.

Democrats top presidential super PAC, Priorities USA, rated Iowa this month as leaning toward Mr. Trump and outside the top-six battleground states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina and Florida. But that might change. While Iowa isnt currently in our spending plans, its a state were keeping an eye on, said Josh Schwerin, a senior strategist for the group. The fact that its in play shows that Biden is on offense and will have multiple paths to 270, he added, referring to the electoral votes needed for victory.

Its a different story in the Senate race. Democratic outside groups have booked $24.1 million to support Ms. Greenfield with TV ads through Election Day, and Republican groups are close behind with $22.6 million on behalf of Ms. Ernst.

Democrats hoping to control the Senate need to net four seats in November (or three if they win the White House since the vice president has a tiebreaking vote). Their top targets are Republican incumbents in Colorado, Arizona and Maine. Close behind are the incumbents in North Carolina and, increasingly, Iowa.

The Senate Majority PAC, the top outside Democratic group in Senate races, has lined up $13 million for TV ads in Iowa after Labor Day. It matches $12.5 million reserved by the leading Republican outside group, the Senate Leadership Fund.

The idea that Iowas in play really shouldnt surprise people, said J.B. Poersch, president of the Senate Majority PAC, which is aligned with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. It came to the table this way, since the intensity of the caucuses.

The Iowa caucuses in February may have been a fiasco when it came to counting votes, as well as an embarrassment for Mr. Biden, who finished fourth. But a year of intense organizing by presidential hopefuls in the state brought a bounty of new Democratic voters. Democrats now outnumber registered Republicans in the state by 9,000, a reversal from the 2018 midterm elections when Republicans had a 23,000-voter advantage.

See the original post:
Joni Ernst and Donald Trump Could Both Be in Trouble in Iowa - The New York Times

Photo by Louis Freedberg/EdSource

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-VA, chairperson of the House Education and Labor Committee

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-VA, chairperson of the House Education and Labor Committee

Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill continue to spar over the need for more federal education aid.

How the legislative battle is resolved could have profound consequences for Californias efforts to save its public education system from budget cutbacks, or to keep many school districts from going deep into debtor both.

Last month,Democrats in the House of Representatives voted toapprove the HEROES Act that could result in close to $60 billion in direct emergency aid to schools nationally. However, it would need approval in the U.S. Senate, and there is no indication that the GOP leadership there is ready to consider additional support any time soon. But the Senate is not expected to take up legislation regarding additional funding until sometime in late July at the earliest.

At a hearing on Monday of the House Education and Labor Committee, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-VA, the committee chairperson, said that the experience of the Great Recession makes it essential that Congress approves the additional funding, beyond the $13 billion in K-12 education funding authorized by the CARES Act approved by Congress in the spring.

The lessons from our past makes clear the school districts urgently need more relief, he said, noting that in 2008 Congress provided states nearly three times as much funding as it has approved so far. We cannot put the safety of students, teachers and communities at risk by reopening schools without providing them the resources they need.

However, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-NC, the ranking Republican on the committee, argued vociferously against more funding from Congress. She said there had been no evaluation of how the education aid through the CARES Act has been spent. Her comments underscored Republican opposition to approving additional spending for schools in particular, and for states in general.

Congress must first evaluate the impact of the billions of dollars in federal taxpayer education aid before rushing to further burden taxpayers with additional spending, she said. Demanding additional funds at this time is premature and illogical.

Yet here we are with Democrats pushing taxpayers to dole out more of their hard-earned money at a time when many Americans are being forced to tighten their belts, she said, noting that some schools have not yet spent the funds they received under the CARES Act.

On top of that, she said, money is not a cure-all solution, and it is irresponsible to throw more money at this situation, she said.

Repeating a common argument made by GOP lawmakers, she said that per-pupil education spending has increased over the years but high school seniors arent performing better than they were 30 years ago, glossing over some improvements, including much-improved graduation rates.

Gov. Newsom is hoping to receive billions of dollars more in federal aid for schools in order to offset a projected $6.4 billion reduction in funding for schools, as well as multiple other cuts in his proposed budget for next year. Meanwhile, the state Legislature on Monday approved a budget based on the assumption that California will receive billions of dollars in additional federal aid, and if it doesnt, to allow the state to defer payments of state funds to school districts. That could result, among multiple consequences, in many districts having to borrow money until the state can repay them at a later time.

In his testimony to the committee, Michael Leachman, the vice president for state fiscal policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive nonpartisan research and policy organization, said many school districts have never fully recovered from the effects of the Great Recession. Nationally, schools employed 77,000 fewer staff than before the Great Recession, despite serving 1.5 million more students, he said.

He said states will experience a total of $615 billion in deficit funding over the next three years. Unless school districts receive more in federal aid, he predicted that they will have to lay off more and more teachers and other workers, in addition to other cuts. The impact, he said, would be especially damaging to students of color and low-income students, because they are more likely to attend schools with fewer resources.

The $13 billion in federal education aid Congress approved through the CARES Act, he said, was far too little to meet the extreme fiscal challenges that schools are facing. Even the $60 billion in direct education funding in the Houses HEROES Act, while a significant step in the right direction, on its own it is not enough, he said.

Continued here:
Democrats and Republicans in Congress spar over need for more federal education aid - EdSource

The magical Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.Photo: Getty

In the last year, some big banks have committed to protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska through withholding their investments from the Arctic as a whole. Seems like Alaskas elected officials are pretty pissed about it. In fact, theyve formally made a whole stink about the new environmental policies banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase have rolled out.

In a letter dated June 16, that Politico obtained, Rep. Don Young, Senator Dan Sullivan, and Senator Lisa Murkowski wrote to offices with the Federal Reserve System, Comptroller of the Currency, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation pleading that they do something to stop these banks. It follows a similarly whiny letter on the same topic 36 Republicans sent to the White House last month. But the new letters go further both by begging for action and invoking the benefits oil and gas has had on Alaska Native communities to defend its argument.

This is a bit disingenuous given the role Alaska Natives have played in securing these commitments from banks (though it is true some Alaska Natives do support drilling). The letter goes on to say Arctic oil and gas is the U.S.s way out of this coronavirus-fueled economic slump. Really, though?

Lets back up real quick. The administration opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuges 1.5 million-acre coastal plain to drilling in 2017 under President Donald Trumps dumb ass tax bill. This was despite vocal opposition from the Gwichin Nation, whose members consider the coastal plain sacred. State attorneys general and even nuns also called to not expand drilling. Since then, however, theres been no luck in actually exploring for oil and gas due to regulatory delays and even a lack of ice thats needed for seismic tests to operate safely. (Hello, global warming?)

Its seeming less and less likely that any reasonable company will look to destroy this pristine landscape. After all, where will they secure funding for it? The Alaska Republicans are complaining that banks are staying away from the Arctic due to reputational risk, but its about a lot more than that. Its about banks bottom line. Drilling in the remote Arctic is costly. For many banks, oil and gas projects in this region are just not viable investments anymore, especially when they weigh the environmental risk should something go wrong. These banks are making a sound business decision in staying clear of this region.

G/O Media may get a commission

The coronavirus is only accelerating the trend of oil being a bad investment, particularly oil thats costly to dig up and ship. The market is essentially turning rapidly against risky oil. Its funny how Republicans love to tout the value of the free market until it doesnt line up with their interests.

This is nothing more than an ongoing temper tantrum from Republicans upset that banks are recognizing the reality that Arctic drilling is an expensive risk thats not worth taking, Sierra Club senior campaign representative Ben Cushing wrote in a statement to Earther. A growing number of banks are making the obvious business decision to stay away from drilling in the Arctic Refuge because it would threaten their reputation and their bottom line, and no amount of angry letters is going to change that.

Alaska Republicans, however, are in denial. They want to see the world burn I guess. The pandemic offers a rare opportunity for world leaders to completely transform the economy to be less carbon-intensive. This is urgent given the way the climate crisis is already affecting our planet, particularly the rapidly changing Arctic. Though many Alaska Native communities do benefit financially from oil and gas exploration on their lands, theyre also the ones that are set to suffer the most from melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, and other impacts that affect their land and way of life.

However, their representatives in Congress dont mention any of that in this letter. Instead of thinking about the long-term consequences of carbon pollution and damage wrought by drilling, theyre focused on the immediate benefits these communities may reap from the fossil fuel sector. If were talking about immediate concerns, though, what about a potential oil spill? How would that impact the marine resources many of these communities depend on?

The Congress members call this move from banks discriminatory in the letter, similar to what Trump administration officials have said. But whats actually discriminatory is their inaction on a global crisis that will disproportionately harm their constituents.

Original post:
Alaska Republicans Write Whiny Letter in Desperate Effort to Save Arctic Oil and Gas Industry - Gizmodo