Saturday, May 27, 2023

Via RealClearWire:

Iowa Poll: Trump Holds 3-to-1 Lead Over DeSantis

May 25, 2023

An abortive rally and an expanding field of challengers hasn’t hurt Donald Trump’s standing in Iowa, according to a new poll from Emerson College. In results released Thursday morning, 62% of Republican voters indicated they would choose Trump as the party’s nominee, giving the former president a 3-to-1 margin over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who clocked in at 20%. Mike Pence and Nikki Haley are tied for third with 5%. 

DeSantis, who formally declared his run Wednesday during a Twitter livestream with Elon Musk, has long been considered the most significant challenger to Trump for the GOP nomination, but the gap between the two has been expanding. Although the governor made a pair of widely covered visits to Iowa earlier this month, any corresponding boost in the polls has yet to materialize. The Emerson survey places him about on par with the current RCP national average

Nonetheless, the DeSantis campaign may have exposed a fault line within the GOP’s base. The new poll found that although Trump was preferred by Republican voters across the board, he was especially favored by those under the age of 35 (75%) and without a college degree (70%). DeSantis is much closer among Republicans with a postgraduate degree. 

The poll found that either candidate would beat President Biden handily in Iowa if the election were held today. A rematch between Trump and Biden shows a 49%-38% Trump lead in the Hawkeye State, with 10% voting third party and 6% undecided. DeSantis leads Biden 45%-38%. 

Despite this — and despite a meager 35% job approval rating in the state — Iowa Democrats remain united behind Biden. Emerson found 69% of them ready to support his reelection in 2024. Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. comes in a distant second at 11%. 

The survey also showed that the top concern among Iowans is the economy, with 31% of all voters citing it as the most important issue facing their state. This was followed by education (15%), “threats to democracy” (15%), immigration (10%), abortion access (9%), and health care (8%).

Election integrity continues to be an especially divisive issue. Although the majority of those polled stated that Joe Biden’s 2020 victory was legitimate, 46% of Iowa voters — including 43% of independents — said it was not.  There was, predictably, a split along party lines: 91% of Democrats believe the election results to be sound, and 78% of Republicans do not. 

Iowans are also anxious for their state’s caucus to retain its first-in-the-nation status, a roughly 50-year-old tradition that has cemented Iowa as a cornerstone of the American political landscape and transformed the sparsely populated, rural state into a kind of presidential power broker. Its status has been threatened this year following a move by Democrats to swap Iowa with South Carolina in their primary lineup. 

About three-fourths of voters found it “very” (40%) or “somewhat” (34%) important that Iowa keep its perch as first in the nation. Republicans were particularly animated by the issue, with 86% saying it was important. 

Voters in Iowa are also divided, though less informed, when it comes to the looming prospect of America’s first-ever default on its national debt. Half of them (49%) are against raising the debt ceiling, compared to 36% in favor, with 16% unsure. 

The one area where Iowans from both parties unequivocally agreed?  The need for televised presidential debates. A whopping 92% of all caucus voters found that participation in debates was important prior to making a decision. Trump has cited his poll numbers as proof that he need not debate with any of his party’s numerous upstart candidates. Iowans do not agree. 

Emerson’s poll was conducted May 19-23 among 1,064 registered voters. The margin of error is roughly 2.9 percentage points.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

American voters may be finally growing weary of the Ukraine-Russia proxy war

 Economics is number one with voters. So, it's often missed in the polling, but a recent poll shows only 38% approve of Biden's foreign policy. I believe it's Ukraine weariness. Taxpayers are tired of spending 10s billions for no return. The war is stalemated. Nobody even seems to know where our money went. Trump is the only major candidate on the side of making peace in Ukraine. Biden's a warmonger. DeSantis flip-flopped. After wanting to disengage from the war, he now supports it. His big donors in the defense industry got to him? I believe voters and taxpayers want a peace treaty. They have had enough. Another $100 billion of our tax dollars and another hundred thousand dead won't change a thing. If we keep funding it, this war could last a decade! Via Fox News:

Sunday, May 21, 2023

Via RealClearWire:


Biden Administrations New Mortgage Policy: Unjust and Dangerous

May 19, 2023

One of the essential lessons most of us are taught early in life is the importance of developing a sense of financial responsibility.

Work hard to earn a good paycheck. Don’t spend more than you can afford. Save for the future.

Eventually, following these steps will land you in a position where you can afford some of the nicer things life has to offer. Behaving in a financially responsible way isn’t always fun in the moment – but it’s well worth it when you get to reap the rewards of your good decisions later on, as you’re able to enjoy more and more of the things you want and need.

It’s one of the most fundamental principles of our society, and it’s also rooted in one of the basic realities of human nature: Incentivize good behavior, and you’ll get more of it.

But what happens when the incentive structure becomes inverted? We’re about to find out, because that’s what’s going to occur thanks to a new Biden administration policy that took effect on May 1.

The new Federal Housing Finance Agency policy will force those with good credit scores to pay more for their mortgages each month, with those extra payments used to subsidize the loans of higher-risk borrowers. Experts say that homebuyers with credit scores of 680 or higher will now pay roughly $40 per month more on a home loan of $400,000, with those who make down payments of 15 to 20% hit with the highest fees. It amounts to a tax increase on the middle class, and it’s atrocious in every way imaginable.

For starters, it is fundamentally unjust and absurd to impose a policy that punishes those who have acted responsibly, sacrificed, and worked hard toward a secure financial future for themselves and their families. That’s why I was honored to join a coalition of 34 state financial officers from around the country, led by Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity, in signing a letter to the Biden administration voicing opposition.

But this new policy is more than simply unfair. It’s also deeply reckless. The 2008 financial crisis and mortgage meltdown offered a painful lesson in what happens when government intervenes to push those who cannot afford a home loan to take one and to undermine the critical role that credit scores play in assessing a prospective borrower’s risk level. My home state of Nevada was hit the hardest by that crisis, suffering under the highest rates of foreclosures and unemployment in the entire nation. And Nevadans will once again be put in a position of exceptional vulnerability under the Biden administration’s new policy.

For its part, the administration defends its policy on the grounds that it’s simply trying to close a gap in house ownership between higher- and lower-income Americans. The administration also anticipates some political gain through what is merely the latest of its many wealth redistribution schemes.

But while increasing opportunities for home ownership is a laudable goal, the right way to accomplish this is by taking steps to eliminate unnecessary regulations, reduce inflation, and bring down energy costs – not to subvert basic market principles to political considerations.

If political advantage is what the Biden administration is indeed expecting here, they may be in for a harsh surprise. The more Americans learn about this new policy, the more they are rightly outraged and insulted that the administration would adopt a plan that perversely punishes responsible behavior and removes Americans’ incentives to manage their finances wisely and prudently.

The administration should reverse course immediately.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.