|Bid||41.40 x 800|
|Ask||41.43 x 900|
|Day's Range||41.03 - 41.70|
|52 Week Range||26.13 - 47.95|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||0.81|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||49.23|
|Earnings Date||Nov 05, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.24 (0.57%)|
|Ex-Dividend Date||Oct 06, 2020|
|1y Target Est||47.86|
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The past few days have offered the most clarifying hours of American politics since the night of Nov. 8, 2016. Four years ago, President Donald Trump’s unlikely victory put the world on notice that the U.S. was slamming the brakes on the 21st century. Last weekend, the White House and Congress defined the 2020 election in the starkest terms yet.White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told CNN on Sunday that the White House has given up trying to prevaricate the coronavirus into submission. With new cases spiking across the country, the president’s oft-repeated fairy tale about “rounding the turn” against the virus was murdered and dumped in an unmarked grave. “We’re not going to control the pandemic,” Meadows said. “We are going to control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics and other mitigations.”Meadows’ white flag was preceded by Bloomberg News uncovering more White House infections, this time among the staff of Vice President Mike Pence. At long last, the White House message on the virus was consistent and coherent: There is no White House policy, and there never will be.If he becomes president in January, Joe Biden would nationalize mask-wearing, testing and tracing, and procurement of PPE and any subsequent vaccine. In the meantime, White House personnel — the president first and foremost — will continue to spread the virus at densely packed public events.Clouds of obfuscation also parted in the Senate. On Sunday Democrats waged an unsuccessful filibuster of the Amy Coney Barrett juggernaut, which will give conservatives a 6-to-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court.The Democratic Party’s left has been increasingly incensed about the Senate’s anti-majoritarian structure and reality — the GOP majority represents millions fewer Americans than the Democratic minority. Moderates now seem to be rejecting the anti-majoritarian bent of the Senate and the courts, as well. Eliminating the filibuster and enlarging the Supreme Court are no longer fringe excitements.“I don’t want to pack the court,” said Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats. “I don’t want to have to do that. But if all of this rule breaking is taking place, what does the majority expect. What do they expect?” Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of the Trumpiest states in the union, said he would oppose Barrett’s nomination, tweeting Monday: “Instead of helping the American people, Senate Republicans chose to exercise raw political power & push through a Supreme Court confirmation 8 days before the election, further dividing our country.”Senator Tom Carper, a moderate from Biden’s home state of Delaware, told the New York Times that addressing climate change after decades of Republican stalling may require institutional change. “Getting rid of the filibuster — that shouldn’t be the first thing we should lead with,” Carper said. “But Republicans should have in the back of their minds that it could come to that.”In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that she would seek the speaker’s gavel again in January. Pelosi no doubt envisions major legislation on health care, climate, taxes and more. With a less lethargic Senate partner — that is, a Senate without the filibuster — Congress could become a high-volume legislative factory.Finally, the weekend also brought an unsurprising but nonetheless harrowing report from Axios. If Trump remains in power, Axios reported, he plans to fire FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper. The full Trumpification of the intelligence agencies and law enforcement will be Trump’s first order of business.There are no questions left in the 2020 election. A single, frenetic weekend answered them all. All that remains is to learn whether democracy or authoritarianism gains the upper hand on Nov. 3.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Francis Wilkinson writes editorials on politics and U.S. domestic policy for Bloomberg Opinion. He was executive editor of the Week. He was previously a writer for Rolling Stone, a communications consultant and a political media strategist.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
New York Times Company shows improving price performance, earning an upgrade to its IBD Relative Strength Rating from 79 to 83.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Amid this year’s civil unrest, President Donald Trump has promoted the idea that disorder is a feature of “Democrat cities” — that in places such as Portland, Minneapolis and Chicago, decades of weak Democratic leaders have invited lawlessness by coddling protesters and rioters. Only Trump’s brand of “law and order,” the argument goes, can restore calm and safety.Actually, America’s cities were the Republicans’ to lose, and they did so willingly. Since the 1990s, they have retreated to suburbs and rural areas, demonizing cities in the process.Strange as it may seem, there was a time when Republicans ran more than a handful of prominent U.S. cities. From the late 1980s to the early 2000s, notable mayors included Richard Riordan in Los Angeles, Pete Wilson in San Diego, William Hudnut and later Steven Goldsmith in Indianapolis. And of course Rudy Giuliani in New York City. Although not a mayor himself, Jack Kemp, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President George H.W. Bush, did much to alter the perception that Republicans had little interest in governing big cities.The mayors took a pragmatic approach, firmly grounded in conservative principles. Indianapolis’s Hudnut, for example, championed an aggressive economic development agenda that utilized amateur sports facilities as the catalyst. And despite his controversial tactics, New York’s Giuliani made crime reduction a central, and successful, issue. It seemed that Republicans might fully join in the work of creating better cities.It didn’t last. Today, Republicans lead about 20% of cities with more than 500,000 residents, according to researchers Justin de Benedictis-Kessner and Christopher Warshaw (cited in The New York Times). That’s down from almost 40% in the late 1990s.During the 1990s, Republicans went all in on the suburbs and the Sun Belt, perhaps because they saw growth opportunities compared to declining cities on the East Coast, West Coast and Rust Belt (what is the Sun Belt but the nation’s suburbs, writ large?). Aided by the rise of conservative talk radio, well-suited to rush-hour suburban commuters, they built a base that expanded outward to the exurban periphery and into rural areas. Over the ensuing decades, their efforts helped solidify the perception that suburban equals Republican and urban equals Democrat, creating a political divide that paralleled the social one, and leading to demonization on both sides.More recently, however, demographic changes have undermined the Republican strategy. Suburbia became more economically and socially diverse, bringing broader political range to once homogenously conservative areas. Domestic migration fueled the rapid growth of Sun Belt cities, transforming the political calculus in much of the South and West. Immigration contributed to the shift as well, as did the back-to-the-city movement among younger and empty-nester suburbanites. The perception of both city and suburb evolved.There’s a path forward for Republicans. It entails reviving their tradition of pragmatic local leadership — as Kevin Faulconer has done in San Diego, by eschewing ideology in favor of what will improve people’s lives. As the mayor of the largest Republican-led city, he has taken positions often seen among his Democratic counterparts. He’s in favor of increasing housing density to improve affordability, and he has advocated for more funding to address a profound homelessness problem. In 2014, he introduced San Diego’s first Climate Action Plan, which included a goal to purchase 100% of the city’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.Alternatively, Republicans can stick with Trump’s law-and-order rhetoric, which resonated for a while but has since faded. Millions of city and suburban residents around the nation grappled with the reckoning on race that was, and is, taking place. During the summer, there might have been a point where a majority of voters would have approved of a strong response to contain and eliminate protests. However, the administration’s overreach — the forceful clearing of peaceful protesters from Washington, D.C.’s Lafayette Square for Trump’s photo op, the disastrous escalation against protesters in Portland — diminished the power of the argument.“Democrat cities” didn’t always become so willingly. Republicans can recognize the winds of change and adapt accordingly, or risk being pushed back and eroded by the breeze.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Pete Saunders is the community and economic development director for the village of Richton Park, Illinois, and an urban planning consultant. He is also the editor and publisher of the Corner Side Yard, a blog focused on public policy in America's Rust Belt cities. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.