Polls: There Is Overwhelming Support for the Protests

Two new polls confirm that the public strongly supports the ongoing protests. One is from the Washington Post/Schar School and the other is from the left-leaning Navigator Research. Normally, we take polls from left-leaning or right-leaning organizations with a barrel of salt, but when they confirm a poll commissioned by a major media outlet, it is kind of a second opinion. Here is the WaPo poll on the question: "Do you support or oppose protests following [George] Floyd's killing that have taken place in cities across the country?"

Here 74% of all adults support the protests. The Navigator Research has the number at 68%. Since Navigator came in with a lower score than the Post/Schar School, there is every reason to believe it hasn't cooked the books and the difference is just a normal statistical variation that is to be expected when the margin of error is about ±3.5%. The true number is probably about 70%.

Among Democrats, support is 87% (Post) or 89% (Navigator). Among Republicans it is 53% (Post) or 44% (Navigator). These are reasonably consistent and the difference may be due in part to the different wordings of the question (the Navigator poll uses the phrase "police treatment of Black Americans and the Post's doesn't). Also noteworthy is that most people do not blame the protesters for the riots, but outsiders. The Post puts this at 66% and Navigator puts it at 69%. Finally, 61% of adults disapprove of how Donald Trump has handled the protests according to the Post and 59% disapprove according to Navigator. The two polls published demographic breakdowns if you are interested, but roughly summarized young people, black people, and Latinos disapprove most of Trump's response, and old people and white people disapprove least (but they still disapprove by double digits). (V)

Some White Men Held Counterprotest to Floyd's Killing

While a bit over two-thirds of Americans support the protests of the killing of George Floyd, close to one-third don't. A group of them held a counterprotest Tuesday in Franklin Township, NJ, in response to a peaceful protest there. The highlight was a man with his knee just above the neck of another man who was playing the role of George Floyd. They were barking: "Black lives matter to no one," "Blue lives matter," and "It's his fault that he's dead, not the cop."

One of them was a senior guard at a local state prison. The New Jersey Dept. of Corrections has suspended him pending an investigation. Prison guards can think anything they want to, but they really ought to know better than to act out a crime in order to mock the victim while the cameras are rolling. Another "reenactor" worked for FedEx, but as soon as FedEx caught wind of his little play, he became a former FedEx employee. The company said: "We stand with those who support justice and equality."

Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ) called the actions of the men "repugnant." He was seconded by the local mayor and police chief. The person who organized the protest that the counterprotesters were mocking, Daryan Fennal, said: "The display yesterday showed me that racism is real, racism is alive, it's right next door to you." (V)

Why Is There a Military Response to the Protests?

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has a good point about why the response to the protests has a military flavor. Here is a police car, modern style:

It is an MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected) vehicle. It's great for driving around places where the crew expects land mines and IEDs, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Police departments are using them in American cities. When faced with these nifty police toys, it is not surprising that many Americans see the police as their enemy, not their protector.

Marshall also makes the point that after they leave the Armed Forces, many veterans look for jobs in law enforcement, and they bring their military attitude and training with them. Remember, the U.S. has been at war almost continuously since the Gulf War in 1990, so there are many veterans who have been discharged and moved over to law enforcement. Some of them may have PTSD as a result of their war experience. One study from the Dallas PD showed that officers with a military background were significantly more likely to fire their service weapons in the line of duty than non-veterans.

Another example of the militarization of the police has to do with tactics. A short while after the National Guard cleared Lafayette Square last week so Donald Trump could stand in front of a church he has never attended with a Bible he doesn't read, a helicopter flew low over a group of protesters so the downwash from the rotor would hit the crowd hard and scare them. This is a well-known and fully approved method for dealing with clusters of enemy soldiers. The helicopter pilot undoubtedly knew this and was trained in the maneuver in the military. Helicopters are notoriously unstable and difficult to fly, so a pilot with only civilian experience would never have attempted to fly so close to the ground. The danger of crashing would be much too great.

In short, when civilian policing is done using former military personnel using military weapons and military tactics, it creates an enormous gulf between the police and the citizens. As a thought experiment, just imagine that the police actively recruited large numbers of female social workers instead of male military veterans. The response to unrest might just be a tad different. (V)

Coronavirus Spikes, White House Goes Radio Silent

COVID-19 is still mowing down hundreds of Americans a day, day in, day out (with the total still reaching four figures some days). The total number of deaths is now at 112,000 and the number of confirmed cases is 2 million. By early next week, it will have killed more Americans than died in WW I (116,500) and more than twice as many doughboys who died in combat (53,400), as opposed to those who succumbed to the 1918 influenza pandemic (63,100). But the White House has completely dropped the subject. There hasn't been a briefing in over a month and Anthony Fauci has disappeared from public view. That probably wasn't his idea. In addition, the administration has banned many officials from appearing before House committees.

While New York has the problem under control, it would appear, the coronavirus is raging in meatpacking plants, prisons, and other facilities where people are stuck close together. The top three states for new cases are Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina, all of them key swing states. But these aren't the only ones seeing upticks. Nineteen states have upward trends in new cases.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is itching to get back to the old normal, holding the large campaign rallies with the cheering crowds that give him energy and validation. Any talk of COVID-19 just gets in the way of his plans, so it has been banned. As far as he is concerned, the coronavirus problem is history and it's time to move on.

In fact, Trump has already scheduled his first mass rally. It will be in Tulsa, OK, next week. From a political standpoint, this makes no sense at all. In 2016, Trump won Oklahoma by 36 points. He'll probably repeat that this year. Oklahoma is not a swing state. Most politicians hold rallies in order to win over voters who are not already on their team or to fire up voters who are on their team but who might otherwise stay home. Neither of these apply to Oklahoma, which was Trump's third best state in 2016. Rallies in Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, or the Rust Belt would all make sense, but not Oklahoma. Unless the whole purpose of the rally was just to make the candidate feel good by having thousands of people roar their approval. We suspect that might just be the case here, similar to the feel-good commercials the campaign is airing in Virginia and D.C., and the "all is well" pollster that was hired this week.

There may be other problems coming up besides the virus. Currently, FEMA is managing it, but FEMA leadership wants to hand the hot potato over to HHS so FEMA can prepare for the upcoming hurricane season. Hurricanes happen, because, well, hurricanes happen, and if FEMA officials are busy dealing with the spread of the virus, they aren't preparing for hurricanes. The CDC is largely demoralized and sidelined due to Trump's insistence that the problem is gone. In short, the administration is poorly coordinated and will be taken by surprise when the next disaster strikes, whether it be a huge outbreak of COVID-19 or a hurricane. But that is inevitable when the guy at the top doesn't want to hear anything but good news. (V)

Republican Convention May Move to Jacksonville

Donald Trump wants a big convention with roaring crowds, just like in 2016. He's not going to get it in Charlotte because the mayor and the governor don't think it would be safe. So he picked up his marbles and went home, where home is defined as his new home state of Florida. RNC officials are currently inspecting Jacksonville, FL, as the most likely site of the convention.

While people outside Florida rarely know this, Jacksonville (Pop. 921,000) is the biggest city in Florida, far larger than #2 Miami (Pop. 492,000), #3 Tampa (Pop. 403,000), or #4 Orlando (Pop. 297,000). Even better, from Trump's point of view, is that the mayor, Lenny Curry, is a Republican, as is the state's governor, Ron DeSantis. Consequently, he is not going to get a lot of blowback for doing unsafe things, like packing thousands of people into a confined space.

Jacksonville has multiple potential venues. The VyStar Veterans Memorial Arena can seat 13,000 to 15,000 people, depending on the configuration. The TIAA Bank Field, home to the NFL Jacksonville Jaguars, is an outdoor stadium that can seat 68,000 or more. Having an outdoor convention would be unusual, but from a health point of view, a huge outdoor stadium with two or three empty seats between each person might not be such a nutty idea. It wouldn't photograph very well, though, and the crowd noise wouldn't reach the level of "deafening," which Trump craves.

The venue isn't the only issue, though. A key one is whether the city has enough hotel capacity available on short notice. RNC officials are expecting 50,000 people to show up, including delegates, alternates, Republican politicians, donors, reporters from all over the world, media crews, TV anchors, spinmasters, photographers, bloggers, technical personnel, public safety teams, medical personnel, prostitutes, alternate prostitutes, and more. Protesters are probably not included in the RNC count, but you betcha that more than a couple will show up. The eight downtown hotels have 2,300 rooms, obviously far too few. The entire hotel capacity of Duval County is 18,000 rooms. If people were to snuggle up together, three to a room, that would work. Otherwise, some people would have to stay in neighboring counties (Nassau, Clay, or St. Johns). The nearest city to Jacksonville is St. Augustine (pop. 14,600), an hour away, which has 3,600 hotel rooms on account of its popularity as a tourist destination but some of those rooms might already be booked.

Also a problem is that Jacksonville is currently under an emergency order restricting some businesses from opening. It also requires restaurants to operate at 50% of capacity. If there aren't enough hotel rooms and restaurants available, the logistics get more complicated.

Even if all goes well and Jacksonville has enough capacity, part of the convention will still be held in Charlotte so the RNC can honor its contracts signed in North Carolina. These meetings are likely to be lower-profile events, like the meeting of the Rules Committee, etc. Can people shuttle back and forth? It's possible. It takes 5-6 hours to drive between the two cities, but American Airlines has seven nonstop flights from Charlotte to Jacksonville every day for $228. The flight takes a bit over an hour. However, some of the flights use regional jets that can seat only 70-90 passengers at full capacity and fewer if the airline blocks off some seats for social distancing.

Is everyone enthusiastic about the convention coming to Jax? Actually, no. A petition opposing having the convention in Jacksonville has already gotten over 5,000 signatures. Among other things, it says: "The use of city of Jacksonville for the Republican National Convention must be prevented. The damages incurred will take years to recover from. It would outweigh any financial benefits that the city could hope for. This convention will bring with it the largest protests in the history of our country." But in the end, Trump generally gets what Trump wants, possibly excepting reelection.

However, the move to Jacksonville is not a done deal yet. The hotel situation could yet nix the deal. And ultimately it is up to the Republican National Committee to make the decision, not Trump. If the RNC feels the logistics don't work for Jacksonville, it could stick with Charlotte or look for yet another site. (V)

Trump Won't Rename Army Bases

Donald Trump, like Richard Nixon before him, has a Southern Strategy. Trump's involves ignoring his own Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, who wants to rename some military bases that are named after Confederate generals. Trump is having none of it. He tweeted: "Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations." While Trump didn't mention it, renaming places like Fort Bragg (named after Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg) or Fort Hood (named after Confederate Gen. John Bell Hood), might offend some of his base in the South. The Pentagon was OK with renaming them, but Trump ended that discussion fast.

In a way, naming a base after a Confederate general in the first place was crazy. After all, these people were traitors to the United States and led an armed rebellion against the United States. Normally, people who commit treason against the United States don't get military bases named after them. There is no Fort Benedict Arnold. In fact, one would think the ranking of potential military-base-name honorees would go something like this:

1. Military heroes of the United States (e.g., Alvin York)
2. Civilian heroes of the United States who also served in the military (e.g., Jackie Robinson)
3. Civilian heroes of the United States who did not serve in the military (e.g., Clara Barton)
4. Pretty much everyone else
5. Serial killers
6. U.S. military personnel who turned traitor

However, when the federal government was acquiring land in the early and mid-20th century to build military bases (particularly for use in waging World War II), the terms of purchase in Southern states often included naming the bases after prominent Confederates. To please his base, Trump wants to keep it that way.

Interestingly enough, some people, even conservatives, do get it. Yesterday NASCAR banned the Confederate flag from all its cars, merchandise, and events. So, you won't be seeing this at NASCAR events anymore:

Oh, wait. This may not be the flag they were thinking about. This was the national flag of the Confederacy for the majority of its existence. It has 13 stars because in addition to the 11 seceded states, the CSA tried to claim Kentucky and Missouri as theirs without success. In any case, this is the flag that NASCAR is actually talking about:

This is the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (ANV), which was the Confederacy's most important army. It was never the Confederate national flag, although the prominence of the ANV and the aesthetics of the battle flag caused it to be incorporated into some national flag variants after mid-1863 (usually as the corner field of an otherwise white flag). In addition, it was used as a banner by opponents of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, which gave it an added layer of white supremacist symbolism. It further carries connotations of defiance to the federal government and of extending the middle finger to liberals/political correctness/non-Southerners. In short, if the goal is to honor one's history and/or ancestors, there are flag options available that are not the battle flag. Anyone who insists on the battle flag cannot avoid that they are communicating some sort of hostile message about race, politics, non-Southerners, or some combination of the above.

As you might know, NASCAR fans are generally not liberal hippies. The smoke you smell at races is definitely produced by tobacco, rubber tires, or burning fuel, and not anything else. A lot of NASCAR fans belong to Trump's base, but the organization said: "The presence of the Confederate flag at NASCAR events runs contrary to our commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all fans, our competitors and our industry." We'll see if stock car racing fans suddenly turn their backs on the sport and become fans of say, go-kart racing, lawnmower racing, or snowmobile racing, but we have our doubts. Alternatively, NASCAR races are known for being a long string of left turns, which is why it's sometimes called the "left-turn league." Maybe someone will create a "right-turn league" for right-wing fans. (V & Z)

Study Says Democrats Should Stop Running Ads Attacking Trump

A study by two political scientists, one at Berkeley and one at Yale, concludes that Democrats are wasting their money running ads about how awful Donald Trump is. The faithful aren't being convinced and people who hate him don't need to be told why they hate him. Surprisingly, despite his 48 years in politics, there are plenty of people who don't know much about Joe Biden. This gives both sides the opportunity to define him. The study suggests that the Democrats do it first.

The study consisted of taking a set of 291 messages, some pro-Biden, some anti-Biden, some pro-Trump, and some anti-Trump and showing a random sample of them to 132,000 people. They concluded that anti-Trump messages didn't move the needle whereas specific pro-Biden ones did. The former isn't so surprising since we know 95% of the population already has an opinion of Trump and probably nothing will change it. If you tell people that Trump is despoiling the environment or in bed with the Russians or profiting off of his office, Republicans say it is fake news and Democrats say they knew that already.

Given how many people don't pay attention to politics and don't know what Biden did as a senator for 36 years, focusing on defining him makes some sense. Even banal ads that say Biden wants to increase the minimum wage or double Pell grants for college students could make a difference. The researchers claim that the most effective ad that Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) ran against child molester Roy Moore in 2017 didn't focus on Moore's disgusting behavior with teenagers, but was a spot in which Jones said education is good. What a lot of people want now is "back to normal," and ads saying Biden's priorities are more jobs, better wages, good health care, and boring stuff like that might well do the trick more than listing the 666 ways Trump is worse than Satan. (V)

Iowa Really May Be in Play...

For years, Iowa was a swing state. Then, in 2016, it swung so hard right to Donald Trump that Democrats sort of conceded it as a lost cause. Maybe it is a bit early for them to give up, as it appears to be very much in play. Our map above, for example, has it as an exact tie, 47% to 47%, and we have Theresa Greenfield (D) leading Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) by 3 points in the Senate race. It is not good for a sitting senator to be trailing someone who has never been elected to public office and was only formally nominated a week ago.

This year, new Democratic registrations are more than double those of new Republicans, putting Democratic registrations statewide ahead of Republican registrations. Furthermore, the Iowa economy has been hit hard by Trump's trade war with China. Farmers are a conservative lot on the whole, and may stick with Trump, but other voters may not.

In 2016, Iowa was never in doubt. Trump won it by 9 points—more than his margin in Texas. But when you look closely, you don't see Alabama. Iowa has about 200,000 Obama-to-Trump voters in a state Trump carried by 140,000 votes. These people are obviously not diehard racists, since nearly all of them are white and they voted for a black man in 2012. What they wanted in 2016 was hope and change. Trump offered change then. He doesn't offer change now and, most likely, a lot of those 200,000 didn't get the change they wanted and are up for grabs now. That's what the polls are showing.

The Trump campaign realizes this and is spending money in Iowa already, $300,000 on television ads alone in the past few weeks. If Brad Parscale thought Iowa was in the bag, he wouldn't be wasting money advertising there. After all, it's not like the President watches the Des Moines Fox News feed. So both sides now believe the Hawkeye State is up for grabs. (V)

...But Not Texas

Mark McKinnon, a Texas political strategist who mostly works for Republicans but who also worked for former Texas governor Ann Richards (D), and who worked for a group promoting same-sex marriage before Obergefell v. Hodges, has written a piece advising Democrats to forget their fever dream about winning Texas and stop wasting their money there. According to McKinnon, every cycle the Democrats think this is the one that Texas goes purple and it never does. It's true that we have it as an exact tie today, but don't take that too seriously. Texas is very conservative. Also, and more important, is that if the blue wave is so strong as to put Texas seriously in play, then Joe Biden will be sure to win the Rust Belt, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida, and even Georgia, making the Lone Star State unnecessary.

The last time the Democrats won Texas was 1976, when their candidate was a moderate southerner, Jimmy Carter. Joe Biden is no Jimmy Carter. Ann Richards was elected governor in 1990, but by 2000, Republicans held just about every major office in the state. It's true that the demographics are changing, but Democrats have been saying that for decades and they haven't changed enough yet. McKinnon sees putting money in Texas as money down a Texas-sized rathole. It would better be spent on states like North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida, which really are in play this year. (V)

Jerome Powell: Unemployment Will Be 9% at End of the Year

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has predicted that the unemployment rate will be 9.3% at the end of this year. That means it will be around 10-11% on Election Day. This could be positive news for Donald Trump. How? Simple. People are more sensitive to the direction of the unemployment rate than its absolute value. Here are the unemployment rates and results since 1960.

Year	Unemployment	Trend	Incumbent party	Result
2016	4.7%	Falling	Democrats	Incumbent party lost
2012	8.2%	Falling	Democrats	Incumbent party won
2008	6.8%	Rising	Republicans	Incumbent party lost
2004	5.6%	Stable	Republicans	Incumbent party won
2000	3.9%	Rising	Democrats	Incumbent party lost
1996	5.4%	Stable	Democrats	Incumbent party won
1992	7.5%	Rising	Republicans	Incumbent party lost
1988	5.3%	Falling	Republicans	Incumbent party won
1984	7.7%	Falling	Republicans	Incumbent party won
1980	6.9%	Rising	Democrats	Incumbent party lost
1976	7.8%	Falling	Republicans	Incumbent party lost
1972	5.3%	Falling	Republicans	Incumbent party won
1968	3.4%	Stable	Democrats	Incumbent party lost
1964	5.1%	Falling	Democrats	Incumbent party won
1960	6.1%	Rising	Republicans	Incumbent party lost

If unemployment drops from its current value of about 13.3% to 10-11% on Election Day, people will perceive it as falling. In the table above, five out of seven times when it was falling on Election Day, the incumbent party held the White House. It's not rocket science to figure out that if unemployment is falling this year in November, Trump will be trumpeting: "I brought unemployment way down. Give me four more years and I can get it close to zero." Biden can say that it was Trump's mismanagement of the economy that got it so high in the first place, but if people feel things are getting better, it tends to help the incumbent.

Of course, Powell could be completely wrong. A second wave of COVID-19 could force more states to shut down and drive unemployment up again. We don't know. What we do know is that when voters feel things are getting better, it usually helps incumbents. Similarly, when the stock market is higher on Election Day than it was on Aug. 1, the incumbent party usually wins. (V)

Ossoff Advances

When the calendar turned from Tuesday to Wednesday, aspiring U.S. Senator from Georgia Jon Ossoff (D) was a couple of percentage points short of avoiding a runoff (48.4% of the vote with 81% of precincts reporting). The late vote broke heavily in his favor, such that he jumped up to 51% of the vote, and won't have to deal with a runoff, after all. He is now officially the person who will face Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) in November.

In addition to allowing Ossoff to advance, this sequence of events gives some credence to the argument that minority voters in Georgia were targeted by polling place snafus. Ossoff is a moderate, and the votes that put him over the top came from urban areas, particularly Atlanta. In Georgia (and most Southern states), "urban moderate Democrats" and "black voters" are practically synonyms. Meanwhile, the votes that put Ossoff over the top also came in late, which means they were cast by people who had to wait in line until long after the polling places were supposed to close. Add it all up, we get something like "a huge number of black voters had to wait a very long time to cast their ballots for Ossoff."

With that said, if the real goal was to cook the books, better to wait until the general to run your scams rather than to tip your hand in the primary. What probably happened here is that decisions were made in years past that disproportionately made it hard for people of color to vote, and those decisions just so happened to come home to roost Tuesday night. If so, then this could work to the disadvantage of Republicans, since what happened appears to have shone a bright light on the flaws in the system without having delivered any material benefit to the Party. (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

In the runoff of the 2018 special election, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) beat Mike Espy 54% to 46%, an 8-point margin. Now she has—guess what—an 8-point margin over Espy again. The smart money is betting that come November she will have an 8-point margin over him once again. (V)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Mississippi	Mike Espy	41%	Cindy Hyde-Smith*	49%	May 27	May 28	PPP

* Denotes incumbent

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger