quote:

Most Americans wouldn’t consider a banking titan a spokesman for the common man. But give JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon credit for putting his pinkie finger on the phenomenon—the divide—that best explains today’s unsettled political environment.

In an interview Wednesday with CNBC, Mr. Dimon took issue with a disconnected liberal elite that scorns “MAGA” voters. “The Democrats have done a pretty good job with the ‘deplorables’ hugging on to their bibles, and their beer and their guns. I mean, really? Could we just stop that stuff, and actually grow up, and treat other people with respect and listen to them a little bit?”

The powerful, the intellectual and the lazy have long said that the “divide” in this country is between rich and poor. They divvy up Americans along traditional lines related to wealth—college, no college, white-collar, blue-collar, income—then layer on other demographics. This framing has given us the “diploma divide” and the “new suburban voter” and “Hillbilly Elegy.” It’s sent the political class scrambling to understand Donald Trump’s “forgotten man”—again, defined economically.

That framing fails to account for the country’s unsettled electorate. There’s a better description of the shifts both between and within the parties, a split that better explains changing voter demographics and growing populist sentiments. It’s the chasm between a disconnected elite and average Americans. This is becoming a them-vs.-us electorate and election. Political candidates, take heed.

This gulf is described by unique new polling from Scott Rasmussen’s RMG Research, conducted for the Committee to Unleash Prosperity. Mr. Rasmussen says that for more than a year he’d been intrigued by consistent outlier data from a subset of Americans, which he later defined as those with a postgraduate degree, earning more than $150,000 a year, and living in a high-density area. Mr. Rasmussen in the fall conducted two surveys of these “elites” and compared their views to everyone else.

Talk about out of touch. Among the elite, 74% say their finances are getting better, compared with 20% of the rest of voters. (The share is 88% among elites who are Ivy League graduates.) The elite give President Biden an 84% approval rating, compared with 40% from non-elites. And their complete faith in fellow elites extends beyond Mr. Biden. Large majorities of them have a favorable view of university professors (89%), journalists (79%), lawyers and union leaders (78%) and even members of Congress (67%). Two-thirds say they’d prefer a candidate who said teachers and educational professionals, not parents, should decide what children are taught.

More striking is the elite view on bedrock American principles, central to the biggest political fights of today. Nearly 50% of elites believe the U.S. provides “too much individual freedom”—compared with nearly 60% of voters who believe there is too much “government control.” Seventy-seven percent of elites support “strict rationing of gas, meat, and electricity” to fight climate change, vs. 28% of everyone else. More than two-thirds of elite Ivy graduates favor banning things like gasoline-powered cars and stoves and inessential air travel in the name of the environment. More than 70% of average voters say they’d be unwilling to pay more than $100 a year in taxes or costs for climate—compared with 70% of elites who said they’d pay from $250 up to “whatever it takes.”

This framing explains today’s politics better. While this elite is small, its members are prominent in every major institution of American power, from media to universities to government to Wall Street, and have become more intent on imposing their agenda from above. Many American voters feel helplessly under assault from policies that ignore their situation or values.

What unites “rich” and “poor” parents in the revolt against educational failings? A common rejection of disconnected teachers unions and ivory-tower academics. Why are growing numbers of minorities—across all incomes and education levels—rejecting Democrats? They no longer recognize a progressive movement that reflexively espouses that elite view. Why are voters on both sides—including “free market” conservatives—gravitating to politicians who bash “big business” and trade and are increasingly isolationist? They feel the system is rigged by elites that care more about the globe than them. And why the continued appeal of Mr. Trump? The man is a walking promise to stick it to the “establishment” (never mind that most of his party’s establishment has endorsed him).

This lack of trust and cultural divide are no healthier than the simpler rich-poor split, but they’re there. The challenge for Mr. Trump’s GOP opponents as they move past Iowa is to recognize the sense of alienation. That doesn’t mean calling to burn everything down (Vivek Ramaswamy tried that and freaked people out), but it does require a campaign that offers more than vague promises to “strengthen the cause of freedom” or run on “your issues.” The polling suggests that most Americans are looking for a leader who promises to return power to the people. They are looking for a freedom agenda. Anyone?

Write to kim@wsj.com.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
Calling on Sigforum attorneys. I have a Leftist lawyer telling me that everything is a-okay with the fascist court's awarding of $83 million to Carroll, based on his points below. I am sure it is BS, but I do not possess the legal knowledge to respond. Any help is appreciated.

The Leftist lawyer's assertion:

-----------------------------------
He was not denied the opportunity to present relevant evidence. Liability was established in the first trial, where Trump was afforded ample opportunity to present relevant evidence on the issue of liability. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, he was prohibited from presenting evidence on an issue that had already been decided by a jury.

That has been the law in this country for decades, it’s remarkable that trump’s lawyers failed to comprehend a legal principle that any first year law student understands.
------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by SIG228:

Why would you choose to engage with an idiot? Do you think you'll change their mind?

quote:

Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan’s “mentor.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Can somebody explain to me how Trump's lawyers can be so incompetent as to not do their homework and find out about the past relationship between Lewis Kaplan (leftist judge) and Roberta Kaplan (plaintiff's lawyer)? They only found it out after the verdict. You're supposed to dig and know everything about your enemies before the battle, not after. And, it's not like it's some secret buried 10 feet deep.

Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s attorney in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’

By Charles Gasparino
Published Jan. 27, 2024 | Updated Jan. 27, 2024, 7:18 p.m. ET

quote:

Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan’s “mentor.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Can somebody explain to me how Trump's lawyers can be so incompetent as to not do their homework

quote:

“I absolutely trust the jury, and I think that they made their decision based on the evidence. I just don’t think that should take him off the ballot. I think American people will take him off the ballot.”