Here are the ten(ish) links I learned from this week:
- Presidential Election Update
- Clinton and Sanders reach the limits of their patience (The Washington Post)
- 2 winners and 3 losers of Thursday’s Democratic primary debate (Vox)
- The 2016 U.S. Presidential Race: A Cheat Sheet (The Atlantic)
- Republicans have a candidate who could take back the White House. They’re just not voting for him (Vox)
- Voter anger is mostly about party, not social class (The Washington Post)
- Further Reading: American Anger: It’s Not the Economy. It’s the Other Party. (The Upshot)
- Zika Causes Birth Defects, C.D.C. Officials Confirm (The New York Times)
- Further Reading: CDC confirms that Zika causes microcephaly, other birth defects (The Washington Post)
- In 6 graphs, here’s why young Democratic women don’t support Hillary Clinton as much as older women do (The Washington Post)
- The Paradox of Finding Motivation Through Fear (The New York Times)
- Graphs that will make you gasp: Status of Women in Political Science (American Political Science Association)
- The Best – and Worst – States to Avoid Income Taxes (Bloomberg News)
Like this series? Sign-up here to receive it in your e-mail inbox every Friday (and only on Fridays)!
“Bernie Bros” by Lauren Ratliff
“The Best – and Worst – States to Avoid Income Taxes” from “Bloomberg News” – this is an interesting article as it shows the difference among states in this area (will take some research, but one probably could say that DEM controlled states have higher state income tax rates than REP controlled states – in fact the states with no state income tax including Florida, Texas and Tennessee are “red” states).
Rates vary from state to state, plus who is taxed and how much varies (many state tax lower on military retirees and try to woo military retirees to locate there – also many in the military will use a state with no state income tax or a low state income tax as their “home of record” – for example FT Campbell, KY on the TENN/KY line, most stationed there claim TENN residence).
This is federalism as states differ and can choose here how to tax locally.
Also, some of the states with the highest tax rates, also have monetary problems (CA and ILL are basically broke – with the discussion of a bailout for Puerto Rico is taking place – many cite that some US states will be next because of wasteful spending).
Chip, you are right to point to federalism in your discussion here. States (and cities/counties) do set their own taxation rates. It is not always the case that states that vote for the Republican (Democratic) candidate nationally have lower (higher) state income taxes. Florida, for example, is a battleground state. It is also not always the case that the states with the highest tax rates are more likely to have monetary problems. Louisiana, for example, gave high income earners huge tax breaks over the last decade or so, but now they are in crisis and cannot provide basic services to their residents. Kansas faces a severe education crisis. There is an article about the Louisiana case in a post a couple of weeks back. Tax cuts (or increases) may initially have positive effects, but may actually be detrimental later on.
True – have a frat brother who just retired from the Baltimore (MD) City P.D – he is also a NCAA men’s lacrosse referee – and he is moving to Florida (he brother is already living there). Plus many N. Carolina residents who live near the S. Carolina border will buy their gasoline in SC as SC has lower prices (due to a lower sales tax).
On “The Paradox of Finding Motivation through Fear,” I agree with the author that stepping out of your comfort zone somewhere between occasionally and always is a good way to make life more exciting, but I don’t think it’s a paradox, or that this extra excitement is due to fear. I think that humans are innately curious and when we step out of our comfort zones we are pleasing a huge reward center based on curiosity, especially considering how routine our days can seem to be. I do agree that a lot of the time it can seem scary but I don’t think this lies at the core of what the author was really discussing. But, overall, I agree with the article and I enjoyed it.
Clinton and Sanders reach the limits of their Patience:
Throughout the primaries, a pattern could be easily set in terms of the debates. The Republican presidential debate was known to be filled with attacks and yelling, while the democratic debate include the candidate’s politely disagreeing with each other while attempting to voice their agenda as president. However, the set pattern was broken in the New York debate between Clinton and Sanders. While at the beginning of the campaign both candidates swore not to lead a negative campaign, the gloves came off quickly in the debate. Public opinion seem to mirror the idea that Sanders began the attack and while unlike him, he continued to attack Clinton from an offensive rather than defensive way. This is a crucial time in the campaign, in which candidate are going to any cost to attract voters, even if it means painting a negative picture of the other candidate. The atmosphere of the debate grew harsh when the candidates were asked if they think the other person was qualified to be president. Each responded negatively toward the other, claiming that the other would not be able to handle nor positively lead as president. The anger of both candidates took over the debate to an extent that nothing but shouting was heard from both candidates. The whole debate not only angered the candidates but voters as well. Therefore, leading to both positives and negative consequences. For Clinton, it was a positive turn as she went on to lead in the primary. However for Sanders, American did not appreciate the aggressive side that came out in the debate. His continuous attack were seen as a negative aspect of his personality and lead to his loss of the primary. Therefore, breaking his winning streak and further lowering his chance of gaining more delegate to win the nomination.
“The Paradox of Finding Motivation Through Fear” I loved this article and all the messages in it I think it made so much sense in so many ways. When we are doing things or trying to accomplish something we sometimes forget to ask ourselves why. I think the idea of the sink or swim environment is a great answer to why. Feeling just a little bit over your head can keep you motivated and push you keep going and stay excited. I think its an interesting concept because most people don’t want to be over their head but its true when you get to that point something in you makes you keep going and stay motivated. Bringing the “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” concept into all aspects of life can be very beneficial. Diving into the unknown and pushing your self can keep you motivated and excited. Step outside your comfort zone and see the amazing things you can accomplish.
“Voter anger is mostly about party, not social class” (The Washington Post). The article states a feeling that has been around for decades: “It is the economy stupid” (James Carville). Article states that voter’s anger is about their experiences with the economy (as in the chapter on the media -is this media trying to frame and issue?).
The similar article, “American Anger: It’s Not the Economy. It’s the Other Party” (Upshot) states much of the same, but there is more dislike between the parties.
Also, as it is known, many who vote in primaries are loyal to their party and more ideological. Plus in primaries, party identification is important (and as discussed in class the family is an important in acquiring party ID).
True that the party that is out of power is more frustrated (even now with divided government many REPs are frustrated that their party leadership is not doing more).
I really liked the article, “The Paradox of Finding Motivation Through Fear”. Fear is one of the greatest things to conquer. Its so great to overcome because after you overcome it, you realize that its not an actual thing. Its just something people make up in their head. Like in the article, that fear is what motivates you and makes you work so hard knowing that there is a chance of failure. That chance of failure is what motivates you. Just like in the article, You can’t stay in very stressful and crazy times all of the time. You have to go in and out of it to give yourself time to reflect and grow but those hard times are the things that will make you great. Being in over your head is something that no one wants but after you accomplish it and get through it, you feel like you can do anything.
Voter Anger
This article discussed that the frustration that voters feel pertaining to our election and the economy doesn’t come from social class. The article suggests that the biggest source of this frustration comes from the political party that someone is a part of. The article’s survey showed that no matter the income level, republicans and democrats felt very different about their status. The facts that when the party is not in the white house, its voters feel that they are worse off. What is crazy is how strong of an effect it has on people’s outlook. The poorest of democrats still felt that they were better off than the the majority of the wealthiest republicans.
As a young Democratic women, I found the Washington Post article about support for Hillary very fascinating. Although this may not be true for all, I found the beginning of the article offensive. I think that suggesting young women are not advocates for women’s rights, or are only supporting Sanders because that’s “where the boys are” is extremely unfair. And those types of statements only set women back. Based on this article, women who have experienced gender discrimination or feel that their education/ career has been affected by child care are more likely to support Clinton. I think that older generations have had stronger experiences of these kinds which is why they are supporting a female candidate. They are fiercely passionate about having a female leader because being female affected their lives significantly. Younger women, who have not had such experiences, I think are looking more objectively at the candidates and choosing based on their platform rather than their gender.
Emily, I agree that those “where the boys are” statements are unfair and unhelpful. I also like the last sentence of your comment – it’s a perspective I hadn’t considered before! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.