What Americans Think about Politics

[Doug64]

The law is the Refugee Act of 1980. The three ratified treaties are the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the Convention Against Torture. The US ratified the Protocol, essentially an update of the Convention, in 1968. I believe the Convention Against Torture was ratified in 1988.

So of the four treaties you mention, only the Convention Against Torture wouldn't be overridden by the Refugee Act of 1980. And since returning illegal migrants to their homes isn't a form of torture--and certainly doesn't fall into the definition of torture that the Senate included in its ratification of the treaty--I don't really see how it's relevant. BTW, that Convention was actually ratified in 1990, but didn't go into effect until after the passage of enabling legislation by Congress in 1994. It's tortuous path to implementation is a good example of how difficult an actual treaty can be.

 

[Doug64]

And for today's poll, what Likely Voters think of the Biden Administration's* performance (not much):

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Biden’s presidency has been bad for the long-term success of the United States. Thirty-four percent (34%) think Biden’s presidency has been good for America’s long-term success, while another 11% say it hasn’t made much difference. Only 28% believe it would be better for America if Biden is reelected to a second term in 2024. Forty-two percent (42%) think it would be better for America if former President Donald Trump is elected again in 2024. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say it would be better if somebody else is elected president in 2024. While 57% of Democratic voters believe Biden’s reelection in 2024 would be better for America, that opinion is shared by only 10% of Republicans and 16% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Sixty-six percent (66%) of Republicans think electing Trump again in 2024 would be better for the country, as do 19% of Democrats and 42% of unaffiliated voters. Twenty-four percent (24%) of Republicans, 22% of Democrats and 35% of unaffiliated voters say it would be better if somebody else is elected president in 2024.

 

[Nickyjo]

So of the four treaties you mention, only the Convention Against Torture wouldn't be overridden by the Refugee Act of 1980. And since returning illegal migrants to their homes isn't a form of torture--and certainly doesn't fall into the definition of torture that the Senate included in its ratification of the treaty--I don't really see how it's relevant. BTW, that Convention was actually ratified in 1990, but didn't go into effect until after the passage of enabling legislation by Congress in 1994. It's tortuous path to implementation is a good example of how difficult an actual treaty can be.

I am not sure I understand your point. There are only three treaties. The Refugee Act of 1980 was not a treaty, but US law intended to bring the US into compliance with the non-discriminatory Convention and Protocol definitions of a refugee. Before 1980, the US defined a refugee as coming from a communist/communist dominated country or from some places in the Middle East. As to the Convention Against Torture, that agreement doesn’t suggest that returning someone is torture, but Article 3, I believe, of its provisions are a prohibition of return of some one to a country where they would be tortured. Sorry if my mention of the CAT was confusing.

 

[Doug64]

I am not sure I understand your point. There are only three treaties. The Refugee Act of 1980 was not a treaty, but US law intended to bring the US into compliance with the non-discriminatory Convention and Protocol definitions of a refugee. Before 1980, the US defined a refugee as coming from a communist/communist dominated country or from some places in the Middle East.

Right, three treaties, I misspoke. Yes, the US law isn't a treaty, but as a law duly passed through Congress it overrides any treaties previously ratified that it conflicts with. So if it mandates that those applying for asylum be detained until their status is determined, it doesn't matter what earlier treaties might say.

As to the Convention Against Torture, that agreement doesn’t suggest that returning someone is torture, but Article 3, I believe, of its provisions are a prohibition of return of some one to a country where they would be tortured. Sorry if my mention of the CAT was confusing.

No problem. And granted that CAT might apply to a few individuals, I would expect that it would be very few. Even Ukrainians wouldn't be able to argue that they would be tortured if returned.

 

[Doug64]

So today's polls:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the problem of violent in America is getting worse. Only 11% think the crime problem is getting better, while 26% think the problem is staying about the same. These findings have changed little since February. Eighty-one percent (81%) believe the issue of violent crime will be important in this year’s congressional elections, including 46% who say the crime issue will be Very Important. Only 14% don’t think the issue of violent crime will be important in the November elections. Only 35% of voters rate Biden excellent or good for his handling of crime and law enforcement issues. That’s up from 31% in December. Forty-seven percent (47%) give Biden a poor rating for his handling of crime, down from 51% in December.

And a rebound in confidence in the economy in the past month. We'll see if it lasts....

Economic confidence rose to 109.1 in this month’s Rasmussen Reports Economic Index, more than 11 points higher than March. April marks the second consecutive monthly gain after the index in February declined to its lowest point since May 2020. The index is now higher than at any point since June 2021. Enthusiasm about the economy surged under former President Donald Trump, reaching as high as 147.8 in January 2020 before tumbling after the coronavirus lockdown threw Americans out of work and closed many businesses. By November 2020, it had recovered to 126.4, but dropped sharply after President Joe Biden was elected. The index fell to 97.8 in February 2021 before beginning a three-month rebound that took the index to 123.7 in May, followed by a five-month streak of declines.

Forty-six percent (46%) of American Adults rate the economy as excellent or good this month, up 14 points from last month, and four points above the 42% mark in November 2020. The number who rate the economy as poor was 17%, down 24 points from March. Eighteen percent (18%) now think the economy is getting better, down three points from last month. Fifty-six percent (56%) expect a worsening economy, down four points from March. Nineteen percent (19%) now see things staying about the same, up five points from last month. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Democrats view the economy as good or excellent, compared to 45% of Republicans and 44% of those not affiliated with either major party. GOP confidence has declined 29 points since November 2020, when 74% of Republicans had a positive view of the economy, while Democrats’ confidence has risen 19 points from 32% before Biden’s election.

 

[Nickyjo]

Right, three treaties, I misspoke. Yes, the US law isn't a treaty, but as a law duly passed through Congress it overrides any treaties previously ratified that it conflicts with. So if it mandates that those applying for asylum be detained until their status is determined, it doesn't matter what earlier treaties might say.

But I think I have already pointed out that the president, through his DOJ, has great discretion to release any alien he wants to, despite what that law may say. As noted, no immigration official ever brought up the law you mention in any discussion of detention of asylum seekers. It seems that the code you referenced was passed in 1994, and I worked on cases after that, through 2001. As recently as 2-3 years ago, I was at El Paso volunteering with some group that sheltered migrants, and the US border officials passed through a number of asylum seekers to this group after an initial interview. The practice of release of asylum seekers has been going on for decades, under presidents from Reagan through Biden. I have to assume that what the law says does not override the discretion afforded the President and those designated by him to deal with aliens.

No problem. And granted that CAT might apply to a few individuals, I would expect that it would be very few. Even Ukrainians wouldn't be able to argue that they would be tortured if returned.

In the years since I worked in the field, torture may have declined among the countries that produce migrants to the US. There already is evidence of torture of Ukrainians by Russians on the bodies of the former, but their asylum claims will probably not be based on CAT.

 

[Doug64]

But I think I have already pointed out that the president, through his DOJ, has great discretion to release any alien he wants to, despite what that law may say.

Yes, you made that assertion. You provided nothing to back it up. So once again, where in law or Constitution is the President given the right to ignore a law duly passed by Congress?

As noted, no immigration official ever brought up the law you mention in any discussion of detention of asylum seekers. It seems that the code you referenced was passed in 1994, and I worked on cases after that, through 2001.

And as I pointed out, the courts aren’t going to slap the executive branch’s hands unless someone gives them the opportunity by bringing a case.

In the years since I worked in the field, torture may have declined among the countries that produce migrants to the US. There already is evidence of torture of Ukrainians by Russians on the bodies of the former, but their asylum claims will probably not be based on CAT.

You’re likely right, because the most of Ukraine isn’t occupied by Russia. Therefore, the actual chance of the individual in question being tortured is extremely low, practically nonexistent. They’d have to argue that the Russians have some reason to target them in particular.

 

[Nickyjo]

Yes, you made that assertion. You provided nothing to back it up. So once again, where in law or Constitution is the President given the right to ignore a law duly passed by Congress?

Again I was working with officials who didn't want to release people. No one ever brought this up when I was doing this for many years: no government official, no Immigration Judge, no lawyer for the asylum seekers. As to your question about "where in the law," I found the following after a quick search. Under the principle of "prosecutorial discretion," the president can decide not to detain someone. Again, no mention of the law you indicated. It seems the courts and Congress have underlined the powers I suggest officials have.

https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/president-legal-authority-2014-08-20.pdf

And as I pointed out, the courts aren’t going to slap the executive branch’s hands unless someone gives them the opportunity by bringing a case.

The link says the courts have indeed acknowledged the broad powers the executive has.

You’re likely right, because the most of Ukraine isn’t occupied by Russia. Therefore, the actual chance of the individual in question being tortured is extremely low, practically nonexistent. They’d have to argue that the Russians have some reason to target them in particular.

Correct. I assume until we know more how the Russian occupation plays out, we won't know which sorts of persons they may target or how: former government officials, people whom they might accuse of being Nazis per their pretext, former law enforcement, etc.

 

[Doug64]

The link says the courts have indeed acknowledged the broad powers the executive has.

Your link says that the president has the authority to decide how to enforce the laws. What he does not have is the authority to decide whether to enforce the laws. So since the law requires that illegal migrants asking for asylum be detained until their status is determined, the president has the authority to determine how they will be detained, not whether.

 

[Nickyjo]

Your link says that the president has the authority to decide how to enforce the laws. What he does not have is the authority to decide whether to enforce the laws. So since the law requires that illegal migrants asking for asylum be detained until their status is determined, the president has the authority to determine how they will be detained, not whether.

I think your second sentence is not completely correct. Every time you get off with a warning from a cop, the cop is using discretion to decide not to enforce the law.

But read the first bulleted paragraph of the link I sent. It says the president has the power to "arrest, detain, etc." Then it says agencies may develop "discretionary policies specific to the laws they are charged with enforcing." I guarantee you the courts would not slap down a president for releasing migrants. I presume it is why the term "parole" is used for releasing asylum seekers. Here below is the definition of "parole." A person released is sort of still in custody. Parole can be revoked, and one can be "released" from parole, even tho you are already out and about.

Let me give you an analogous example. If an undocumented person is detained at a port of entry, say at first inspection at an airport, the term of art for his status is/used to be "excludable." If detained without documents or having overstayed a visa within the US, the term is/was "deportable." The first term suggests that the alien has never entered the US; it's as if he were still on a ship in a harbor, hence he goes to an "exclusion" hearing to see if he should be allowed into the US. If he is paroled or detained, allowed to physically enter the US, the legal fiction continues, whether he is in jail or wandering around. (I believe the Mariel Cubans had that status.) "Deportable" suggests removing him from the country; "excludable" means we are not admitting him, even if he is physically present. A parolee is, I believe, still technically in the custody of the authorities, even though he may be living next door. Getting back to asylum seekers, their being paroled into the US does not violate the law, as I assume they are still considered in the custody of the US.

definition of parole - Google Search

www.google.com

Finally, it defies belief that Congress would pass a law like the one you've quoted without given the executive the same discretion a traffic cop has. People are attacking Biden for "opening the border" but no one has said he can't do it. We could debate Carter's wisdom in allowing all those Mariel Cubans in, but I don't believe opponents said he couldn't, tho Cubans are a special case in US law. As a practical matter, detaining everyone (without bond?) who passes credible fear interviews would be uneconomical, logistically difficult, and shooting oneself in the foot, as priorities should be given to other aliens who have committed crimes and are waiting deportation proceedings, or who we have not determined might face danger.

 

[Doug64]

A parolee is, I believe, still technically in the custody of the authorities, even though he may be living next door. Getting back to asylum seekers, their being paroled into the US does not violate the law, as I assume they are still considered in the custody of the US.

I expect that when this gets to court the Administration* will argue just that, pointing to the cell phones that they've handed out to the illegal migrants they've released so the migrants can call to arrange hearings, and claiming that those cell phones represent detention. I suspect the judges' response will be something along the line of "Do you think I'm stupid?"

I think your second sentence is not completely correct. Every time you get off with a warning from a cop, the cop is using discretion to decide not to enforce the law.

Finally, it defies belief that Congress would pass a law like the one you've quoted without given the executive the same discretion a traffic cop has.

Police do indeed have discretion whether to issue tickets. But while I can't speak for all fifty states (this is the US, after all), I believe that in general that discretion is explicitly given to them by state laws. Certainly that is the case in Massachusetts, as illustrated there in 2003 when the police union sued the Newton chief of police, arguing that the law granted that right to the police officer on the spot rather than the chief of police. Here's the wording in Massachusetts law that the case was over: “If a police officer observes ... a civil motor vehicle infraction, the officer may issue a written warning or may cite the violator for a civil motor vehicle infraction.... If the officer issues a citation solely for one or more civil motor vehicle infractions without any associated criminal violations, the officer shall indicate on the citation the scheduled assessment for each civil motor vehicle infraction alleged.” Note the language of that law--an officer may issue a written warning or may cite the violator (discretion granted), but if the officer issues a citation that officer shall indicate on the citation the scheduled assessment (discretion not granted). So I'll ask again, where in immigration law is similar discretion granted to the executive branch?

And another thing, that lawsuit? The police union won, the court ruled that the legislature had deliberately shifted the responsibility for making the decision to issue citations from the chief of police to the individual officers on the spot. So how about "prosecutorial diescretion"? Doesn't that by definition lie with the prosecutor rather than their superiors, and certainly not with a cabinet level officer or the president?

 

[Nickyjo]

I expect that when this gets to court the Administration* will argue just that, pointing to the cell phones that they've handed out to the illegal migrants they've released so the migrants can call to arrange hearings, and claiming that those cell phones represent detention. I suspect the judges' response will be something along the line of "Do you think I'm stupid?"



Police do indeed have discretion whether to issue tickets. But while I can't speak for all fifty states (this is the US, after all), I believe that in general that discretion is explicitly given to them by state laws. Certainly that is the case in Massachusetts, as illustrated there in 2003 when the police union sued the Newton chief of police, arguing that the law granted that right to the police officer on the spot rather than the chief of police. Here's the wording in Massachusetts law that the case was over: “If a police officer observes ... a civil motor vehicle infraction, the officer may issue a written warning or may cite the violator for a civil motor vehicle infraction.... If the officer issues a citation solely for one or more civil motor vehicle infractions without any associated criminal violations, the officer shall indicate on the citation the scheduled assessment for each civil motor vehicle infraction alleged.” Note the language of that law--an officer may issue a written warning or may cite the violator (discretion granted), but if the officer issues a citation that officer shall indicate on the citation the scheduled assessment (discretion not granted). So I'll ask again, where in immigration law is similar discretion granted to the executive branch?

And another thing, that lawsuit? The police union won, the court ruled that the legislature had deliberately shifted the responsibility for making the decision to issue citations from the chief of police to the individual officers on the spot. So how about "prosecutorial diescretion"? Doesn't that by definition lie with the prosecutor rather than their superiors, and certainly not with a cabinet level officer or the president?

Sorry, but have to maintain that the President has the right to parole asylum seekers.

 

[Doug64]

It's Monday, so here's the latest Right/Wrong Track:

Thirty percent (30%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey for the week ending April 7, 2022. This week’s finding is unchanged from a week ago. Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe the nation is headed down the wrong track, down one point from a week ago. A year ago at this time, 39% said the United States was heading in the right direction, while 56% said it was on the wrong track.

And then there's what we think of what's happening at the border:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the problem of illegal immigration is getting worse. Only 14% think the illegal immigration problem is getting better, while 27% think the problem is staying about the same. Thirty-two percent (32%) give an excellent or good rating to Biden for his handling of issues related to immigration while 50% rate the president as doing a poor job on immigration. These findings are nearly unchanged since December. Seventy-seven percent (77%) believe the issue of immigration will be important in this year's congressional elections, including 50% who expect the issue to be Very Important. Only 19% don’t think immigration will be an important issue in November. These findings have changed only slightly since February.

All of which means that sometimes Democrats perform so badly that not even the MSM(D) can whitewash it. Though I do have to wonder how many in the MSM(D) have reported that the number of detainer requests, arrests, & deportations of illegal migrant criminals--the ones Biden claimed his administration* was going to focus on--have dropped substantially rather than gone up as one would expect. I guess the Biden people didn't want to focus on the criminal illegals, after all.

 

[RealityNow]

Politics is for "THE EDUCATED MIND" in Civics and the usage of Critical Thinking is necessary within and of understanding what Representative Democracy in a Republic Form of Governance, does to benefit and advance and protect the nation, its people and its principles and its values within "The United States of America" .

Representative Democracy in a Republic Form of Governance there is NO King, NO Dictator, NO Tyrant, NO Autocratic Leader

The Constitution does not even once mention 'Political Parties'.

• George Washington warned against the creation of Political Parties.

The First Words of The Constitition is: "WE THE PEOPLE". (NOT we the political party)

 

[Doug64]

And now what we think of our representatives in Congress (not much, surprise surprise ...)

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 30% of Likely U.S. Voters believe their representative in Congress is the best possible person for the job. That’s down from 32% last September. Forty-two percent (42%) of voters now say their representative in Congress is not the best possible person for the job, and 28% are not sure. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of voters say that, regardless of how Congress is doing overall, their local representative in Congress deserves to be reelected. Forty-one percent (41%) say their representative doesn’t deserve reelection. Twenty percent (20%) are not sure. While 38% of Republicans and 48% of Democrats say their local congressional representative deserves reelection, only 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party share that view. Forty-four percent (47%) of unaffiliated voters say their local representative in Congress does not deserve to be reelected, a view shared by 43% of Republicans and 33% of Democrats. In September, 44% of unaffiliated voters felt their local Congress member didn’t deserve reelection.

 

[Doug64]

So what do we think about gun control?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters don’t think stricter gun control laws would help prevent shootings like the one Tuesday that left 29 people injured in Brooklyn. Thirty-eight percent (38%) think stricter gun control laws would help prevent mass shootings, while another 11% are not sure. These findings are virtually identical to a March 2021 survey, when President Joe Biden called for new gun control measures in the aftermath of two mass shootings. Overall, 43% of voters believe the United States needs stricter gun control laws, while 50% disagree. Fifty-nine percent (59%) think it is not possible to completely prevent mass shootings like the one in Brooklyn, while just 22% believe it is possible to prevent such shootings. Another 19% are not sure.

 

[Doug64]

It's Monday, so here's the latest Right/Wrong Track:

Thirty percent (30%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey for the week ending April 14, 2022. This week’s finding remains unchanged from a week ago. Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe the nation is headed down the wrong track, also the same as a week ago. A year ago at this time, 40% said the United States was heading in the right direction, while 55% said it was on the wrong track.

And for what we think of national security under Biden:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters believe America’s national security situation is getting worse. Just 20% think U.S. national security is getting better, while 22% say the situation is staying about the same. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters give Biden good or excellent ratings for his handling of national security issues, but 48% rate Biden as doing a poor job in this area. These findings have changed only slightly since December. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of voters believe the issue of national security will be important in this year’s congressional elections, including 60% who say the issue will be Very Important.

 

[Doug64]

As expected, Americans' support of both immigration and illegal migration is dropping:

The Rasmussen Reports Immigration Index for the week of April 10-14, 2022, decreased to 87.9, down more than three points from 91.4 two weeks earlier. The Immigration Index has been under the baseline in every survey since Election Day last year, and reached a record low of 82.3 in late March 2021. The index is now more than 17 points below where it was in late October 2020, indicating voters are looking for tighter immigration control from President Joe Biden's administration.

And it seems at least a plurality don't go along with the Left's war on Free Speech, and so are cheering on Elon Musk:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 39% of American Adults believe it would be good for Twitter if Musk bought the company. Twenty-two percent (22%) think Musk’s buyout would be bad for Twitter, while 26% think it would not make much difference. Another 13% are not sure. Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has called himself “a free speech absolutist.” Forty-six percent (46%) of Americans believe social media platforms like Twitter need more free speech, while 38% think it is more important for content on social media to be moderated. Sixteen percent (16%) are undecided. In January 2021, former President Donald Trump was banned from Twitter, and some have speculated that if Musk’s takeover bid succeeds, he would reinstate Trump’s account. Forty-six percent (46%) say that if Musk buys Twitter, he should reinstate Trump’s account, while 43% are opposed to Trump’s Twitter account being reinstated. Another 11 percent are not sure.

 

[Doug64]

And two polls where I at least somewhat disagree with the majority:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters believe women in the military should be allowed to fight on the front lines and perform all the combat roles that men do. That’s up from 56% in May 2015 and near the all-time high of 61% in January 2015. Only 27% of voters now oppose women serving in combat roles, while another 13% are not sure. In 2016, the U.S. military opened combat assignments to women, but controversy has surrounded training standards, including the Army Combat Fitness Test. Nearly two-thirds (66%) of voters believe women assigned to combat duty should be able to pass the same physical fitness requirements as male soldiers, but 25% think there should be different fitness requirements for men and women assigned to combat duty. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of voters say combat effectiveness is more important for military readiness, compared to just 13% who say understanding race and gender issues is more important for military readiness.

Personally, while I have no problem with women serving in combat roles in the Air Force, I disagree with women in ground combat positions. I also think that all women serving sea duty or in active combat positions during extended periods of combat should be required to use birth control. I do agree with the consensus that standards should be the same (and not lowered) and that combat effectiveness is more important than understanding race and gender issues.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters support Biden’s actions to cancel student loan debt, including 30% who Strongly Support canceling such debts. Forty-five percent (45%) oppose Biden’s student loan cancellation, including 32% who Strongly Oppose it. Biden “has expanded existing loan forgiveness programs” to provide “significant relief to more than 700,000 borrowers, totaling more than $17 billion,” CNN reported last week. The Biden administration also recently extended an interest-free “pause” on all student loan payments until the end of August. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters support pausing student loan payments, including 34% who Strongly Support the payment pause. Thirty-nine percent (39%) are opposed, including 25% who Strongly Oppose extending the payment pause on student loans. Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute commented: “Suspending student loan payments will encourage colleges to raise tuition, by making it seem more attractive to take out loans to cover tuition.” Forty-four percent (44%) of voters agreed with Bader’s statement, including 24% who Strongly Agree. Forty-two percent (42%) disagree, including 18% who Strongly Disagree with Bader’s statement. Another 16% are not sure.

I poured a lot of overtime pay into paying off loans for college courses I didn't need (and some I did), but I eventually got all my student debt paid off. If Biden decides to cancel student loan debt, I have one question: "Where do I go to get my money back?"

 

[Doug64]

I'm sure everyone's heard the the MSM(D)'s and the rest of the Left's mockery of Republicans who think cheating "won" the election for Biden....

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is likely that Russian interference changed the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, including 26% who say it’s Very Likely. Forty-six percent (46%) don’t think it’s likely Russian interference changed the 2016 election, including 32% who say it is Not At All Likely. In a July 2020 interview with Joy Reid on MSNBC, Clinton said, “It's very clear that Russia succeeded. They believe that they were able to influence the minds and even votes of Americans, so why would they stop?” Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats believe it’s likely the 2016 election outcome was changed by Russian interference, but that opinion is shared by only 30% of Republicans and 39% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Last week, CNN reported that U.S. intelligence sources believe Russian President Vladimir Putin may be “dialing up his attempts to interfere with American elections.” Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters think it’s likely Russia will try to interfere in this year’s congressional midterm elections, including 38% who say such interference is Very Likely. Thirty-four percent (34%) don’t believe Russian interference in the midterm elections is likely, including 16% who say it is Not At All Likely.

 

[Doug64]

Free at last!

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 51% of American Adults believe ending the mask mandate is a good decision, while 34% think it’s a bad decision. Another 16% are not sure. President Joe Biden’s administration has signaled its intent to appeal U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle’s Monday ruling that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) overstepped its authority by imposing the rule that forced plane and train passengers to wear masks. While a majority (51%) of Democrats say ending the mask mandate is a bad decision, 72% of Republicans believe it’s a good decision. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 48% think it is a good decision to end the mask mandate for airline passengers and 36% say it’s a bad decision. Fifty-one percent (51%) of American Adults believe the danger from COVID-19 is mostly over now, while 40% think the virus is still a major public health threat.

But perhaps not exactly well off, even if employed ...

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 69% of American Adults think it is possible for anyone who really wants to work to find a job. Just 20% disagree, while another 12% are not sure. Those findings match the all-time high from 2019. Prior to 2014, the number of Americans who believed anyone who wants work can find a job ranged from 29% to 54%. That finding climbed into the low 60s in regular surveying after that. Fifty-one percent (51%) say it is possible for just about anyone in the United States to work their way out of poverty. Thirty-one percent (31%) disagree, while 18% are not sure. This is consistent with findings in surveying since January 2009. Among full-time working Americans, 39% expect to be earning more money a year from now – unchanged from January, which was the lowest finding since 2013. Fifteen percent (15%) think they will be earning less. Forty-two percent (42%) believe that their pay will stay about the same.

 

[Doug64]

I wasn't hitting on all cylinders yesterday, and forgot about the Rasmussen polls! So there's three today instead of the usual one or two.

Thirty-one percent (31%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey for the week ending April 21, 2022. This week’s finding is up one point from a week ago. Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters believe the nation is headed down the wrong track, down one point from a week ago. A year ago at this time, 39% said the United States was heading in the right direction, while 55% said it was on the wrong track.

And here's a poll that goes a long way to explaining why the Democrats are in so much trouble right now:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 51% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the Biden administration is purposefully encouraging illegal immigration, while 34% disagree and 15% are not sure. During former President Donald Trump’s term, illegal immigration through the southern border was greatly reduced, but has reached an all-time high since Biden took office. Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters oppose this trend, including 41% who Strongly Oppose it. However, 35% support the trend of rising illegal immigration, including 19% who Strongly Support it. Another 12% are not sure. A majority (53%) of Democrats support the trend of record-setting illegal immigration, which is opposed by 75% of Republicans and 54% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

This one too, though not as much I think.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 66% of Likely U.S. Voters believe America is now more divided than it was before the 2020 election. That’s slightly higher than when we asked the same question last October. Just 12% now think the country has become more united since Biden’s election, while 18% say it has remained about the same. Biden campaigned on a promise to unite the country, but nearly half (49%) of voters believe the president has done a poor job of keeping that promise. Only 33% rate Biden as having done an excellent or good job of keeping his promise to unite America. Could this fall’s congressional election help unite the country? Voters are predictably divided. Thirty-eight percent (38%) believe it would do more to unite the country if Republicans win a majority in Congress, while 31% think Democrats winning would unite the country more. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say it would not make much difference which party wins in November, in terms of uniting the country.

 

[Doug64]

And more bad news for Democrats generally and the Biden administration* specifically:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 84% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the rising price of gasoline, home heating oil and other petroleum products is a serious problem, including 61% who say it’s a Very Serious Problem. Only 15% don’t think rising fuel prices are a serious problem. These findings are virtually unchanged since November. Biden has blamed major oil companies and Russian President Vladimir Putin for higher fuel prices. However, only 15% of voters blame Putin and 26% blame oil companies, while 51% say Biden bears the most responsibility for higher fuel prices. The average price of a gallon of gasoline, which was $2.20 in November 2020, rose to $3.50 by November 2021, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and is now $4.21. Sixty-one percent (61%) think Biden has not done enough to stop the rising price of gasoline, home heating oil and other petroleum products, while just 27% believe Biden has done enough.

 

[Doug64]

And more pain that isn't going away any time soon.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 87% of American Adults say they’re paying more for groceries now than they were a year ago, an increase from 83% last October. Only nine percent (9%) now say they aren’t paying more for groceries. Fifty-five percent (55%) say rising food prices have caused them to change their eating habits, while 39% have not changed the way they eat because of inflation. Sixty-four percent (64%) expect that the amount they spend on groceries a year from now will be higher. Only nine percent (9%) think they’ll be paying less for groceries in a year, while 16% expect their grocery bill to remain about the same. Another 11% are not sure.

 

[Eriech]

There is a great deal of truth in that, and I blame it on inner-party jockeying for position on what message is given.

The Democrat party owns the main stream media narrative. If they have a message problem it is because most don't believe anymore.
Having an incoherent weekend at Bernie's standard bearer can't help either.