FiveThirtyEight: Americans’ Distaste For Both Trump And Clinton Is Record-Breaking

Clinton’s average “strongly unfavorable” rating in probability sample polls from late March to late April, 37 percent, is about 5 percentage points higher than the previous high between 19803 and 2012. Trump, though, is on another planet. Trump’s average “strongly unfavorable” rating, 53 percent, is 20 percentage points higher than every candidate’s rating besides Clinton’s. Trump is less disliked than David Duke was when Duke ran for the presidency in 1992, but Duke never came close to winning the nomination. In fact, I’ve seen never anything like Trump’s numbers heading into a general election for someone who is supposed to be competitive.

Part of the negativity voters feel toward Clinton and Trump probably has something to do with growing political polarization in our country. But polarization doesn’t explain everything. If Trump and Clinton’s strongly unfavorable ratings were simply a byproduct of polarized politics, you’d expect them to have high “strongly favorable” ratings too. They don’t.

Read the article

Mashable: How a popular politician boosted an unpopular party in Scotland

Ruth Davidson, who comfortably won Edinburgh Central, an area where the Conservatives previously placed fourth, has become the driving force of the Tories in Scotland, winning over voters and inspiring others to join to the party along the way. [...]

Young, working class, Christian, openly gay and driven by liberal values, she famously described herself as a “tough old bird” but she has an affability that charms most who meet her. She also has in bucket loads that elusive characteristic – relatability – that so many politicians would give their second homes for.

On top of that she has some real world experience, having served in the Territorial Army, making it out to Kosovo and injuring her back at one point. Her stint as a producer and presenter for the BBC at the start of her career, meanwhile, has gifted her the gab essential to succeed in politics.

Read the article

The Guardian: A truth we hate to admit – we are one people in Europe

The truth is, European governments have never fundamentally wanted their citizens to think of themselves as genuinely European citizens. EU institutions are by no means flawless, but they have also been a handy punch bag for national politicians wanting to deflect criticism from their own failings.

So, how can we define ourselves collectively? When Europeans travel to America, Asia or Africa, many intuitively do feel European. Tourists recognise this. But when returning back home, to Paris or London or Warsaw, that feeling somehow evaporates and we quickly plunge back into nationally framed debates and differences.

Read the article

In These Times - Ilan Pappe: Israel Is the Last Remaining, Active Settler-Colonialist Project

You mentioned Benny Morris, the Israeli New Historian and a so-called liberal Zionist. He’s parted ways with many of the other New Historians arguing for instance that “there are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing” and that “it was necessary to uproot [the Palestinians]” to create a Jewish state. What has led him to such different conclusions than yourself despite working from similar historical material?

He’s part of a phenomenon, but he’s more known than the others. It’s a typical liberal Zionist position. They hope that if you cry after you shoot, if you say, “yes, I was partially wrong. There are certain things I shouldn’t have done” the other side would say “You’re so generous. From now on we’re willing to accept your guidance of how best to build a new life,” which is what the Israelis expected would happen in Oslo.It didn’t work that way. The fact that you admitted that there were massacres and especially expulsions in 1948 for the Palestinians meant you have to move to the second stage which is accountability. You have to respect the right of return. [...]

Many people will be surprised to read in the book that anti-Zionist Jews have been around since the founding of the state of Israel, some even before. Do you have any stories about Maxim Ghilan, Israel Shahak, Boaz Evron, Yitzhak Laor, Ilan Halevi, Uri Davis?

Those of us who became more critical of Zionism are standing on their shoulders. They were there if not from the very beginning of Zionism, they were definitely there from the very beginning of the state.

Maxim Ghilan is someone who went through the Holocaust. I brought him as an example because he belonged to that generation of Israelis in the ‘60s who could mainly be found in the group Matzpen, in the 1960s and also after 1967, who succeeded in producing a wholesale counter-dogma to the Zionist dogma. There were some who were definitely more interesting intellectually and ideologically than Ghilan was, but his colorful life is more interesting than the others.

Read the article