Democrats Still Lack Ideas

It is one of the biggest refrains of Democratic complains about Republicans during the era of Trump; obstruction works!  Republicans tried to block everything he did, never brought ideas to the table and were rewarded at the ballot box. Twice!  Why can’t we do the same?

Well, I can think of a few reasons why.  Obama’s agenda was politically toxic, he pursued an agenda unrelated to the major issue of the time (the economy) and he ignored any ideas Republicans threw out.  He also ignored the political makeup of his Congressional coalition as he sought to ram healthcare down Americans throats.  The result has been a loss of over 1,000 legislative seats, dozens of Congressional seats and 12 Senate seats. The party’s bench in many states has been decimated to the point they are running political neophytes in the majority of swing states and districts held by Republican incumbents next year.

Democrats, with Trump now in the White House, believe they can harness the power of the “Resistance” and the “Rising American Electorate” by adopting the GOP strategy of the last eight years.  One problem.  While Trump might be personally unpopular and the GOP’s health care plan is not viewed favorably (though topline poll numbers do not tell the whole story), Trump’s agenda is not.

Just look at Trump’s travel ban.  Last week, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found 60 percent of voters approved of Trump’s plan.  A solid majority, 56 percent, of Independents, and even 41 percent of Democrats agreed with the plan.

Maybe this is because Democrats lack ideas on how to deal with the threat.  For example, when we have witnessed terrorist attacks, whether here at home, or witnessed them abroad, the refrain from the Left is we cannot allow ourselves to be terrorized.  Comforting.  But hardly a solution.  Likewise, Bernie Sanders blaming terrorism on global warming hardly offers s solution to Americans who do not want to be killed.

You could argue the ban was crafted sloppily.  You’d be right.  The original rollout was terrible.  The revised ban even had notable flaws though its rollout was much, much smoother.  Yet, compared to arguments global warming causes terrorism it at least seems realistic.

The same dynamic is playing out on immigration.  Building a “big, beautiful wall,” is largely impractical.  But, that said, at least it brings attention to a major problem for border states and towns.

Democrats, on the other hand, talk a lot about compassion and the need to be accepting and progressive.  I can even agree with that sentiment.  But, those are not ideas.  They are feelings.  They do nothing to address the fact states have to spend billions on healthcare to educate and provide healthcare for these individuals.  Every nation on Earth defends its borders.  Why can’t we?

Part of the problem is Democrats know that espousing such a view is an electoral death-knell.  Democrats can’t say they don’t want to enforce immigration laws but they communicate it subtly through inaction.  This wins them an election every now and again but made their grasp on the White House incredibly fragile as Trump showed.

On healthcare and trade Democrats spend an inordinate amount of time calling out Republicans for wanting people to “die” but refusing to make changes to the ACA.  Democrats commonly lash out at big business and banks for having an unfair advantage but then solicit millions in donations and continue to give them favorable conditions through laws and trade agreements to the detriment of Joe and Jane.

It’s common for the party out of power to wander in the wilderness and try to find an appealing new message.  But, the party is increasingly split between big government, populists and identity politick progressives that are pulling the party in different directions.

In this light it is easy to see why party elders (largely part of the identity politick cult) have made the party’s core message “We are not Trump.”  That is fine and all but it does nothing to craft an appealing message, address the issues of the economy, terrorism, or health care, and puts the party at a disadvantage in understanding why the party is so locked out of power.

It’s interesting that when Democrats had a chance to recognize Trump’s appealing message last week they went in the opposite direction.  Speaking in Poland last week, Trump defended Western values and liberals went nuts.  The New York Times and Washington Post both put out articles calling it insensitive and tone-deaf.  Not to be outdone, Vox called it racist.

The Democratic message of today is one of pure opposition.  But the assumption the GOP ran on nothing in 2010 and 2014 is a farce.  Republicans ran on policies of deregulation and lower taxes.  They ran on limiting abortion and slowing destabilizing cultural change.

Democrats are not running on anything similar.  They’re essentially coddling the “resistance” to stay angry at everything Trump does.  This makes the party’s poll numbers look good but they also looked good in 2016.  We know how that turned out.

Democrats need to do more than posturing and virtue signaling.  They actually need to put out some policy ideas.  Better yet, simply signaling they sympathize and understand the problems of Americans outside urban and suburban oases on the coasts would be a good start.

According to a Hill report, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee unveiled its latest proposed bumper stickers for the midterm.  One that was widely mocked read, “Democrats 2018: I mean, have you seen the other guys?”

Yes, apparently voters have.  They seem to like them considering how utterly irrelevant the party is in dozens of states across the country.  In states dominated by Democrats, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and Oregon, to name a few, legislators have so paid off political interests (read: public unions) they are facing daunting billion dollar pension crises.  If Illinois and Oregon are any indication, Democrats don’t have the will or knowledge to address these issues.  Funny, how in the state I live in (Idaho), dominated by Republicans, has one of the healthiest pension systems in the nation (PERSI).

Democrats seem to think outright opposition, laughing at Trump and stoking their base will be enough to win big next November.  Maybe so.  But, right now, even soft Republicans and reluctant Trump backers are sticking with him (see Kansas, Montana, South Carolina and Georgia’s special election results).  Additionally, when Trump’s policies poll well because Democrats lack one voters might be saying, yet again, they are willing to support the party and the guy willing to confront the issues they face everyday.

 

 

2016’s Electoral Outcomes Show the Shifting Nature of American Politics

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton might be political old-hands (despite Trump claiming he is an outsider) but the results of their  2016 battle showcased how American electoral politics is changing.  Ground zero for this shift was heavily Mormon Utah.

Donald Trump won Utah, but he did so by a much smaller margin than Mitt Romney did four years earlier.  Indeed, where Romney won the state with over 70 percent of the vote Trump did not even win a majority as he garnered only 45 percent.  One could argue a lot of possible Trump voters in a two candidate race went to third party candidate Evan McMullin but either way McMullin won 21 percent.

The top-line numbers are not what signifies the shift though.  Rather, it is how different sub-groups voted.  Older Mormons, particularly those over 35, supported Donald Trump in large numbers.  By contract, younger Mormons were far more likely to support McMullin or even Gary Johnson.

Unlike younger voters overall, younger Mormons are not any less conservative than their parents.  For example, according to a 2011 survey of Mormons by Pew, Mormans 18-29 years old were least likely to identify as Democrats at 2 percent and most likely to describe themselves as very conservative or conservative.  However, compared to the 30-49 age group only 50 percent of young Mormons identified as Republican compared to 55 percent of older Mormons.  Despite their conservative heritage, younger Mormons were also least likely to identify with the Tea Party, support a government with fewer services and more supportive of the idea immigrants are a benefit to the US.  But, on gay marriage and abortion, younger Mormons were as adamant as their parents they were morally wrong and most likely to attend church services.

McMullin’s vote share among younger Mormons was a manifestation of the feeling the GOP does not represent younger Mormons.  Of course, Clinton only got 27 percent of all Utah voters so there was also a wide scale rejection of Democratic politics.  Trumpian secular politics does not appeal to younger Mormons leaving an ideological void Independents like McMullin can occupy.  But down-ballot, these voters are also likely to remain Republican.

The Mormon shift is hardly the only example we can look to.  Consider the votes of younger Evangelicals.  Exit polls show Trump won the votes of 83 percent of all Evangelicals and well over a majority of younger Evangelicals.  But in suburban areas his numbers among this sub-group were much smaller than in rural areas.

A 2017 Pew study showed Evangelical Millennials are just as likely to believe in the immorality of abortion as previous generations.  But, just as among younger Mormons, they have seen a decline in economic conservative yet are just a tad less likely to identify as Republican but less likely to identify as Democrats.  Unlike younger Mormons though, they are more accepting of gay marriage.  So, in some ways, Trump’s moderate tone on social issues like LBGT issues played better with them than younger Mormons.

These shifting attitudes do not mean Mormons and Evangelicals are any less likely to attend church.  Additionally, despite starting the home school movement Christian Millennials have earned college degrees at a faster rate than any prior generation.  It’s just education has not shifted their voting preferences notably as it has other groups.  College educated Christians are more likely to attend church weekly than those with lower levels of education: “68% of evangelicals with degrees attend church weekly vs 55% without, 45% of Catholics with degrees vs 37% for those without, 85% of Mormons with degrees vs 72% for those without.”  Further, despite believing science and religion are compatible Millennial Christians are actually more likely to say the Bible is the literal or inspired word of God than their parents.

These fractures are just among two groups.  And while they disproportionately impact strongly GOP groups the same thing is playing out in the Democratic Party.  College educated and single women are increasingly being drawn into one form of the Democratic Party (we’ll call it Universalists) while the youngest, college educated Democrats are drawn to Bernie Sanders populist mantra.

What these fractures expose is just how much harder it will be for two political parties to represent the interests of so many different voting groups.  This does not mean a viable third party will form.  Our system is biased and set up to favor only two major parties at one time.

That said, it also means that power will likely shift more constantly despite gerrymandering and other efforts to permanently lock in power.  Red and blue states will not disappear overnight but party registration may become less important and ideological self-identification more so.

Voters are more likely to feel dissatisfied with one party and if that occurs but they are very conservative or very liberal they are more likely to stay home than vote.  Turnout could dip significantly time and time again as a result as both parties attempt to find short-term messages that appeal to as many groups at once as possible.  One thing is for sure.  It won’t be boring to watch.

Why Trump’s Poll Numbers Should Worry The GOP

Last week, Fivethirtyeight partnered with Survey Monkey to look at a very particular group of Trump voters, unenthusiastic Trump voters.  Surveying 7,000 adults who supported Trump, these voters comprised 15 percent of respondents and it is not a stretch to say they helped swing the election his way.

Per the survey, their are significant policy and demographic differences between this group and enthusiastic Trump supporters.  While unenthusiastic Trump supporters were strongly white and middle aged, 37 percent had college degrees compared to 25 percent of enthusiastic Trump backers.

More importantly for the GOP’s political health in the age of Trump, only 75 percent identify as Republican or Republican leaning compared to 91 percent of the other cohort.  The better news for the GOP is despite Trump’s early setbacks 74 percent of the group still approve of Trump.

What should worry Republicans about this group the most though is they have different policy priorities than the President.  It is important to keep in mind that Trump ran the most unorthodox GOP campaign for the Presidency in a generation.  As a result, some of the positions the President took run against traditional conservative views.

This could prove to be a problem going forward with unenthusiastic Trump voters.  For example, unenthusiastic Trump supporters rated healthcare as their highest policy priority while enthusiastic Trump supporters rated it fourth, well behind immigration and terrorism.  Both groups rated the economy as the highest priority by varying margins.

This has already played out in the policy arena.  When Trump and Congressional Republicans were trying to pass the AHCA they found little support among traditional conservative and moderate lawmakers (reflecting their constituencies).  This shows up in the survey among the two groups.  Unenthusiastic Trump supporters only approved of the President’s handling of the issue with 54 percent.  By contrast, 88 percent Trump’s strongest backers approved of his handling of the issue.

Trump might be maintaining the allegiance of his unenthusiastic backers by continuing to spend time focusing on traditional conservative causes like the Supreme Court.  Fully 86 percent of these voters approved of his pick of Neil Gorusch for the High Court.  Ominously for Democrats attempting to scandalize Trump to death, three-fourths of reluctant voters think the investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is a distraction.

Again though, Republicans under Trump might struggle to hold these voters loyalties.  On his budget, 80 percent of enthusiastic Trump supporters approve.  But among the unenthusiastic group,  barely half do.  Trump’s budget significantly hikes defense spending and it is possible fiscal conservatives are objecting to this hike.

Combined with differing policy perspectives warning bells should be ringing in Republicans heads.  Trump ran as a law and order candidate promising an unorthodox set of policy positions.  This means some of Trump”s policy priorities (largely based on class and geographic appeal) might fall flat with this crucial group.

It may be starting to show.  The survey found 15 percent of reluctant Trump supporters plan to vote for the Democratic candidate for their district in 2018 though the caveat is a generic candidate can be whatever a voter wants.

Still, this explains why Republicans are so closely watching the results of GA-6.  The district is ripe with the kind of unenthusiastic voters the party needs to hold the district.  Unlike Montana or KS-4, the enthusiastic Trump vote in rural areas does not exist in GA-6.  As Kansas showed, Republicans are falling further in metro areas (see Witchita County returns) making their need to hold unenthusiastic Trump supporters more important than ever.

Now, here comes the caveat to the survey’s findings.  It is one poll and the results in GA-6 showed a majority of voters still backed Republicans.  Approval polls showing Trump in the low 40’s still have him well above water with his own party and Democrats might be overplaying their hand with pure opposition to everything he does.

Still, Trump’s approval ratings are not good to put it mildly.  The most endangered Republicans are the members sitting in districts full of the more educated, affluent Republicans that felt Trump was the less of two evils.  If Trump’s lagging poll numbers and this survey are any indication, Republicans should be pulling out all the stops to protect these members and their majority.

The Electoral College Map Favored Republicans For Once

Since 2004, Republicans have griped that the Electoral College map is stacked against them. Even in Bush’s commanding victory he only carried 286 Electoral votes and lost states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The nomination of Donald Trump was expected to shake up the old red/blue divide because of his appeal to blue-collar whites. To a degree it did. David Byler over at RCP put together a cool chart tracking these changes compared to Romney’s two-party share of the vote.

Unsurprisingly, the chart shows red states stayed red, blue states stayed blue and to a degree purple states stayed purple. But, that masks some pretty significant shifts. For example, Trump ran 6 percent better in Ohio, 4 percent in Wisconsin, 3 percent better in Pennsylvania, 5 percent better in Michigan, 3 percent better in Florida, a whopping 8 percent better in Iowa and 6.5 percent better in Maine. For her part, Clinton made some deeply blue states a darker shade and actually came closer in Texas and Utah than Obama. But, this is the rub, she only did it in Coastal states like WA, OR and CA. Trump actually ran better in NY State, Rhode Island and Hawaii and Delaware than Romney did (for a full list of states Trump did better in than Romney see below).

However, unlike Trump, Clinton failed to flip any of these states into her column. Trump, due to his narrow advantages in the Midwest, flipped the states he needed to win a commanding Electoral College majority.
But, Trump flipped states in a way that was vastly different than Bush and prior Republican nominees had. The recipes for success in Iowa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, to pick just a few examples, were different than Trump’s. For example, in Iowa victory was gained by running up huge margins in Eastern Iowa to offset losses in Western Iowa. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were won by winning in the suburbs and winning or tying in rural areas. In Trump’s case, he won virtually everywhere in Iowa, lost the Philly suburbs substantially but offset those losses by winning big in rural areas and showcased his strength in Wisconsin’s rural areas even as turnout in red, suburban Milwaukee dropped.

For their part, Clinton and Democrats ran up big margins in the Colorado and Virginia suburbs. However, in transitioning Sun Belt states like North Carolina and perennial swing state Florida, the Clinton campaign did not do much better than Obama in the suburbs. They did notably worse in urban areas.

But here is the rub, the Democrats coalition in swing states did not outweigh the new GOP coalition in the Rust Belt. Just look at the math. Democrats won Colorado, Nevada and Virginia (states Bush took in 04) and it gave them 28 Electoral votes. But. Trump won IA, PA, WI, OH and MI and ME’s 2nd CD for a total of 71 votes (states Obama won in 08 and 012). Not a good trade-off.
For once, Republicans get the better end of the Electoral College. But, this view also obscures the fact the GOP got the better of the Electoral College in 2012 when several solid red states gained new votes due to the Census (most notably TX with 4 and AZ with 2).

Republicans certainly don’t have a lock on the map though. Just look at how narrowly Trump won Michigan (11,000 votes), Wisconsin (12,000 votes) and Pennsylvania (35,000) votes. Flip those states and Clinton or another Democrat in 2010 gets 52 Electoral votes and keeps Trump well below 270. Combine this with growing Democratic advantages in CO, NV and VA and they could afford to lose Ohio and Florida and still win.
To prove the point see the chart below.

It’s true short of Virginia most of these states are deeply red or blue. Running up big margins in California won’t change the Electoral College. Nor will coming closer in Texas or Utah. Sure, you could argue Arizona and Georgia are swing seats but for the most part the fundamentals and key county voter preferences showed Trump was likely to win them.
This does leave Democrats somewhat up a creek without a paddle. Whereas Republicans have finally broken through in the Rust Belt (even if their wins are fragile) Democrats have now invested 3 elections worth of effort to flip Texas, Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina. Right now they are batting 1-12. Moreover, the margins in Ohio and Iowa look more Texasesque this election than that befitting perennial swing states.

I recently wrote that this election was a realignment election not based on geography but culture. Right now, Republicans are benefiting from this shift because blue-collar, rural voters are trending their way and suburban voters at worse are splitting their votes in the Rust Belt. On the other hand Democrats have firmly aligned themselves with the culture of minorities, the young, refugees and college educated, urban women and men. So far though, or this election at least, that alliance did not reap many dividends.

That said, here is 1 last important point to keep in mind. After 2012, Republicans said they needed to moderate, pass immigration reform and work with Democrats to win young and urban voters. Instead, Trump won running against immigration reform, the establishment and the cultural tolerance of urban voters. There is no reason to believe that Democrats 4 or 8 years down the road cannot run on a platform similar to Clinton and win. Candidates matter, and let’s be honest, Clinton was a horrible one compared to Obama.

The Dangerous Media Group-Think on Trump

The array of media choices the average American has access to is truly awesome.  From Twitter to Facebook to Reddit to individual blogs and the print media, Americans are truly spoiled with their array of news options.

Indeed, I can find a wide, diverse array of opinions on any given chance in just a few seconds.  I can find right-wing voices from the likes of Jay Cost, Heather Wilhem, Joel Kotkin and more.  I can find dissenting, left-wing voices like EJ Dionne, Andrew Rosenthal and Ezra Klein.

But, of late, I have noticed a dangerous group-think start to be developing around Trump.  Specifically, that he has not shot to win the White House.  This group-think transcends the traditional ideological divide and can be found among both left and right leaning pundits.

From a certain perspective the collective group-think was inevitable.  Ask yourself this?  Where do many of the biggest voices in the media come from?  Now ask where Trump’s strongest support comes from?  Yes sir, those are completely different locations.

Trump’s support has comes from places hardest hit by globalization and where policies crafted in DC have had little beneficial impact.  The biggest voices in media, by and large, come from distinguished institutions of higher learning, were raised in middle class, well-off households, and hold very cosmopolitan values on issues like political correctness and religious liberty.

Left and right, this paradigm exists and has grown this election.  In turn, many average Americans without deep ideological convictions lose out.  Instead, they only read articles searching for a pre-ordained solution.  No wonder so many Americans do not trust the media.

Take the media’s uproar over Trump’s Trump University judge comments.  You would think Trump would have just said the guy should be hung.  Republican politicians and donors (mostly from cosmopolitan values backgrounds) have distanced themselves from Trump.

Yet, PPP (D) a Democratic leaning polling firm found that amid Trump’s comments he has hardly been touched.  Recent polling finds Trump tied in Pennsylvania and leading in Florida (has a big Hispanic population).  Yet, if you only followed the media you would think Trump just doomed his candidacy.

PPP’s President tried to explain away the findings by saying that once Democrats unify Trump is doomed.  Excluded from the analysis, is that Trump is pulling better numbers from North Florida (full of rural, Trump values whites) and Southwestern Pennsylvanians than Romney did in 2012.  It also is an open question whether Hillary can unify her party.  For the crosstabs show both candidates have about equal room to grow among conservatives and liberals.  For goodness sakes, Trump is winning 12 percent of the black vote in Florida (not seen since Bush).  Somehow this gets overlooked in PPP’s survey memo.

Beyond where many media elites come from we are left with an inescapable conclusion.  As great as the Internet has/is it is not a very representative sample of America.  As a result, it is doubtful many in the media know know many Trump supporters (note: the author knows many supporters and opponents of Trump and was kicked off a blog for even hinting that supporting Trump).  Never Trumpers on both the left and right probably know very few Trump supporters and when they meet them they react with revulsion and shock.

Except, many of these individuals ignore the primary strategy Trump has exploited the entire campaign.  More so than any other candidate since Reagan, Trump has used the cultural divide in America fuel his campaign.  His lack of ideology and consistency to some is a plus to many more.  While politicians and the media react only along ideological lines, voters left behind react on more than that.

Beyond PPP’s recent surveys the national RCP average bears this out.  Clinton is barely ahead of Trump.  You would think if she is such a strong front-runner or a great candidate (sorry Ezra Klein, she’s not) she would be much further ahead.  It should be noted national polls were badly off the mark in 2012 compared to their state focused peers.  The same thing could be playing out this year.

But just as Trump is viewed skeptically by many with cosmopolitan values, Hillary is viewed just as badly among Middle America voters.  Having almost 65 percent of voters view you as dishonest does not a winning strategy make (to quote a phrase).

Trump may or may not win this election.  But those in the media should stop treating this election like its a foregone conclusion.  Because it is most assuredly not!

 

 

Carly Fiorina Could Not Have Won California in 2010

It’s somewhat amusing that as Carly Fiorina has risen in the polls and proven to be the most viable outsider candidate that Trump supporters have turned on her with a rabidity not even matched by Trump himself. Not only do these voters think she’s a fake or unprepared but they also think that she could have won California in 2010. Well, it seems a little education is in order here on two fronts: she created more jobs than were lost during her time at HP and second, she could never have won California running on the platform she did.

First-off, Trump supporters and Trump himself can complain little about Fiorina’s record. An entire segment of the second GOP debate was about Trump costing hundreds their jobs when a group of casinos he owned went belly-up in New Jersey. More pertinent to Fiorina, HP had more employees when she left than when she started. How did she accomplish such a feat? She downsized and revamped the company. Unforunately, such a process is painful but ultimately beneficial to the company and future employees.

It’s not surprising to hear Trumpers (as I call them) attack Carly on this point. Obama’s attacks were particularly effective against Romney on that front in 2012. It’s more surprising to hear them say the issue lost Fiorina the 2010 California Senate race. Did I miss something? Are we speaking about the conservative California that exists in an alternate reality?

To be clear; Fiorina could never have won California in 2010. It’s a wonder she kept her loss down to the low double-digits. Consider several factors.

• In September almost 45 percent (44.9) considered themselves Democrats. Barely 30 percent considered themselves Republicans and the rest were unaffiliated. Those registration numbers are atrocious for Republicans. According to Gallup that year California was the 10th most Democratic state in the country.
• Gallup also polled the ideology of voters in CA and found that in 2010 24.1 percent identified as liberal. In 2014 27.5 percent identified as liberal, the 7th highest total in the nation. Good luck winning in a state with that kind of trend and Democratic voting base (before even moderates enter into the equation).
• Fiorina ran as an unabashed conservative in 2010. She only shied away from the gay marriage debate but was more than happy to make it clear she was pro-life. She affiliated with the Tea Party and made little effort to reach out to minorities and it showed. While she won whites by 9 percent she lost every other racial group by double-digits. Keeping in mind California is a majority-minority state that is not a winning campaign formula.
• Fiorina never led in the race. Sure, she polled strong early but that was when GOP candidates were surging nationally. As the election neared and voters became more engaged Boxer began to pull away in mid to late October.

This to some degree explains why Trump supporters argue she could have won in 2010. Hey, if she can be close with Boxer why can’t she close the deal? Must be the TV ads attacking her business tenure.

But that argument ignores the more relevant points above. It also ignores that polling in 2010 was biased nationally in the Republicans direction by a few points meaning the race was never as close as any poll ever showed.

Fiorina was a strong candidate in 2010 despite her flaws and she is an even stronger candidate nationally. Amid a more conservative electorate her views are resonating not just on style but also substance. It is not a sign of weakness she lost in 2010. It is a sign of just how liberal California is and points out the fact NO Republican could have won the state in 2010.

 

 

The Supreme Court Is Still Conservative and Michigan vs. EPA Showcases How

The Supreme Court undeniably tilted left this term.  It was impossible not to note how the court that ruled that money was speech in 2010, significantly weakened the Obamacare contraception mandate in 2011 and eliminated Section IV of the VRA in 2013 and further weakened campaign finance in 2014 suddenly lurched left (upholding state subsidies and supporting gay marriage).  But even though this might be the most liberal year of the Roberts court to date the court is actually far from liberal.

On Monday liberals got a reminder of this when the court upheld Oklahoma’s death penalty drug cocktail and much more importantly ruled in Michigan’s favor in Michigan vs. the EPA.  Most of the attention this session focused on Obamacare and gay marriage but Michigan vs. EPA was far more consequential and shows the court’s strong conservative bent on regulatory issues in which the public has little input to shape.

Michigan vs. EPA’s background centers on the Clean Air Act under Obama.  In early 2012 the EPA decided to start mandating that coal-fired power plants must limit their mercury emissions.  However, the cost of the rule was not evaluated until early 2015 when 21 led Republican states and several coal companies sued over the rule.  The EPA developed a cost formula that said it would cost the industry $9 billion a year but result in over $37 billion a year in health savings.

The court’s 5-4 ruling was damning to the EPA and to agencies who might try such a tactic in the future.  Writing for the majority, Justice Antoin Scalia said, “EPA must consider cost — including cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary.”  He further added,  “EPA refused to consider whether the costs of its decision outweighed the benefits. The agency gave cost no thought at all, because it considered cost irrelevant to its initial decision to regulate. The EPA argued it had such power over due to the Clean Air Act and that there late cost calculations were enough.  Obviously not.  And here is the lesson for those worried about the court’s lurch to the left.  It only goes so far.

A judicial philosophy and ideological split can be seen in the court today.  You have three rock solid Constitutionalist judges in Scalia, Thomas and Alito.  You have four liberals who give the government more deference than the Warren Court did and then you have Roberts and Kennedy.  Both are interesting case studies in judicial philosophies.  Kennedy has long been the swing vote on the court.  A Reagan era appointee, Kennedy has carved out a niche as a center right justice on regulatory issues and the 1st Amendment, libertarian on social issues (abortion and gay marriage) and center-left on affirmative action issues.

Roberts in some ways mirrors Kennedy.  He is as staunch a defender of the 1st Amendment as Kennedy, arguably more conservative on regulatory issues and certainly on social issues.  But Robert’s distinction is his view of Congressional deference.  For example, Kennedy wanted Obamacare’s Individual Mandate killed in 2012 despite the voters electing the people who passed the law.  But Roberts did not.  While Kennedy ruled with Roberts in Burwell last week, Roberts position never shifted as again he favored a law that was passed by elected officials.  Yet, when it has come to ending DOMA, legalizing gay marriage, overturning Michigan’s ban on Affirmative Action through the courts and even the recent Arizona redistricting case he has sided with the conservative point of view.  Robert’s seems to show more deference to voters than anything else (hence Congress).  Kennedy is more of a mixed bag.

Hence the court has three blocs.  A conservative bloc, a larger liberal bloc, and than a moderately conservative bloc strong on some issues and weaker on others.  None of this however should disguise the fact this court remains conservative.  Upholding Obamacare and enacting gay marriage cannot change the facts this court has given conservatives victories in campaign finance, contraception in Obamacare, gutting the VRA, upholding the Death Penalty and making sure regulatory agencies cannot just pick the cost of a rule out of a hat.

The Supreme Court remains conservative and that will come into play next year.  The Court has agreed to hear arguments in UT-Austin’s Affirmative Action admissions policy, put a hold on TX’s stringent abortion rules until it can be heard by the full 5th CC Appeals Court and is also likely to hear a future case on Obamacare and the President’s Executive Action on immigration.  In all cases, minus abortion, conservatives should feel like they are more likely to win than lose due to the make-up of the court and its continuous right leaning bent.

Addendum: Today, the court agreed to hear  a case brought by 10 non-union public school teachers in CA who allege their being forced to pay union dues violates their free speech rights.  Historically, more liberal courts have allowed such a thing as long as these dues are not used on political activities.  

Revisiting the Blue State Diaspora Theory

Following the 2012 election it was conventional wisdom to argue that traditionally red states were becoming bluer.  Even as North Carolina and Indiana returned to their Republican roots by voting against Obama Mitt Romney was losing traditionally red states just as John McCain did a mere four years earlier.  Obama’s victories fueled a number of new theories based on the general premise that demographic change was at work.  But not just in-state demographic change but regional and national migratory patterns,

Two such articles sum up this theory nicely.  The first, written by NPR political analyst Alan Greenblatt in early 2013, posited that socially liberal Californians were turning Nevada and Colorado blue.  Greenblatt, aware that Idaho and Arizona have the third and fourth highest percentage of Californians in the West, makes the point that it has established liberal enclaves in both states such as Boise, Idaho and Tuscon, Arizona.  More on this in a second.The second article was written almost exactly a year later by Robert Gebeloff and David Leonhardt.  The authors analyzed migratory trends nationwide and found that traditionally red states were becoming bluer largely because liberal Northeasterners were moving into Virginia, North Carolina and other states.

But here’s the rub.  Their theory is just that.  A theory.  And a number of good counterarguments, some of my own and others can easily be made to refute their claims.  Let’s look at them shall we.  The first comes from Harry Enten and Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight politics.  They find that the migratory patterns have not led to Democratic dominance but rather increased geographic and partisan polarization.  Enten and Silver write, “Remember, the GOP controls the House of Representatives, a plurality of state legislatures and amajority of governor’s mansions, and Republicans are slight favorites to take the Senate in November. Democrats have done well in recent presidential elections, but if Republicans take the Senate and hold the House, then by 2016 the GOP will have had control of the Senate for 12.5 of the past 24 years and the House for 18 of 24.”

Silver and Enten also find using Census track migration data and GSS (General Social Survey) information that the people who moved from the South Atlantic region (Virginia, North Carolina) are as liberal as those who moved from the Northeast.  In other words, migratory patterns send liberals to liberal areas of states and vice-versa for conservatives.  This should come as little surprise.  Americans self sort all the time and as urban areas have become more liberal, rural areas have become that much more conservative.

My counterargument generally backs up these themes.  Consider Idaho in the West and Virginia and North Carolina in the Mid-Atlantic.  It has been noted that Boise has become bluer due to Californians moving into the state.  Maybe so.  But consider this fact.  In 1990 Democratic Governor Andrus carried all but two counties in the state of Idaho.  Since that point no Democratic candidate for Governor has won more than 10 of Idaho’s 44 counties.  Just as Boise has turned Ada County blue the surrounding suburban and rural counties have become redder.

The same situation is unfolding in Virginia and North Carolina.  Since 2000 the urban counties of Durham, Orange, Wake, Gilford and Forsythe counties have turned bluer.  Mecklenburg county, which contains Charlotte has become bluer.  But since 2000 Democrats have been losing ground in rural counties.  No Democratic candidate has captured more than 10 rural, majority-white counties in federal races except Kay Hagan (08, Senate and she lost ground in her failed reelection bid).

The same could be said in Virginia.  Bush captured Fairfax, Loundon and Prince William County in 2000.  In 04 Bush lost Fairfax.  In 2008 and 2012 when Obama won the state he won these formerly GOP strongholds but performed even worse in rural counties than Al Gore or John Kerry.  Obama was carried by the massive margins these counties gave him.

Now, one could argue that the continued growth of urban areas in red states could make the increasingly Republican leaning inclinations rural counties moot.  But, we are not there yet.  Don’t believe me.  Look at the results of races in North Carolina and CO in 2014 and Nevada in 2012.  In 2012 even as Obama was carrying the state Dean Heller managed to hold an open GOP Senate seat.  In 2014, Tom Tillis managed to defeat Kay Hagan even as she was crushing him in every urban country.  In the West, Colorado, which had not voted for a statewide Republican candidate in federal races since 2004, sent Senator Tom Udall packing in favor of Congressman Cory Gardner.

So, the idea that Democratic gains in red states are due to the movements of liberal voters is a little thin.  Rather, GOP struggles in red states seem increasingly related to their poor showings among minority voters.  Consider Mitt Romney did just as well among white voters in CO as George Bush did in 2000 but he still lost the state.  Why?  Because whites made up a smaller share of the electorate than 2000 and Romney performed worse among the growing blocs of Hispanic and Asian voters.  In other words, Republicans should not be worried about their poor showings in urban areas.  They should be worried about their poor showings among minorities in those urban areas.

All told, the verdict is out on whether migratory patterns from blue to red states is really making a difference.  Urban areas have become bluer but so have rural areas become redder.  Perhaps the population growth of urban areas will permanently turn Nevada and Colorado blue and make North Carolina a light blue.  But until that time comes the blue state diaspora is more conjecture than reality.

 

 

 

The Shortsightedness of the “Tax the Wealthy In Idaho More”

I run in political circles.  Among those circles are liberals, moderates and like-minded conservatives.  On virtually every issue I can have a civil and straight-faced discussion with those who believe differently. Yet, one some issues I cannot maintain a straight face or have an honest discussion.  Among conservatives, the primary issue is ideological purity.  See my article on Labrador’s vote for Boehner here.  Among liberals and some moderates it is on taxation.  More specifically, the what I like to call the “Tax the wealthy in Idaho more crowd.”

I have a tough time discussing such a policy precisely because it lacks any knowledge of policy and Idaho’s tax brackets.  Idaho has an extremely old and regressive tax system.  Did you know Idaho’s top tax bracket for an individual is $21K and $42K for a couple.  The top tax bracket for Idaho was formerly 7.6% but is now 7.4%.  Most recently, the Governor proposing dropping the highest tax bracket to 6.9% over five years which equals a .1% cut every year.

Cuts like this would impact the majority of Idahoans.  Indeed, the Census found Idaho’s median income between $40K and $50K meaning many individuals and couples are paying in the highest tax bracket.  So, should we deem them wealthy?  Should we force an individual earning $21K in Idaho pay more?  According to the federal tax code these individuals are in the lowest tax bracket.

Therein lies the rub that many in the tax more crowd don’t get.  The majority of Idahoans are deemed “wealthy” according to Idaho’s tax code.  Taxing the wealthy is actually a regressive action.  Considering the idea is only proposed by liberals and their banner carried by Democrats in the legislature who claim to care about the poor it is ironic a party that claims to care about the poor would want to tax them and the lower middle class (if $21K can be called that) more.  In fact, it is not hard to make a case for a .5% tax cut for individuals earning $21K to actually be helping the poor or lower middle class.

But I try to be beneficial in such a discussion and give them the benefit of the doubt.  Surely they comprehend these facts.  Sadly not.  Nor do they understand that even if we agree that $21 or $42K is not rich and a new bracket needs to be created it would be a logistical and political nightmare.  Exactly how many Idahoans would line up behind a new tax on $30K, $40K, etc.?  Yah, I thought so.  Exactly as many that are in the tax more crowd.

But, let’s put even that aside for the moment. Consider there may be many millionaires and billionaires in the nation only a few are in Idaho.  Even if set a tax bracket up just for them they could not make up the funding shortfalls the tax more crowd sees.  Taxing what millionaires and billionaires there are here would not fund our infrastructure shortfalls nor education needs.

There are not many other palatable taxing options.  Higher taxes on businesses would discourage investment, not encourage it.  A higher sales tax, though the most fair due to being a consumption tax, is extremely regressive.  Everybody has to eat and we tax groceries.  As an aside, I can see eliminating sales taxes on groceries as being a bipartisan issue both conservatives and liberals could get behind.  Minus the tax more crowd of course.

Ultimately, the tax more crowd is going nowhere.  I am thankful for this.  But the core of their arguments lack context, policy depth and basic knowledge of their state.  It’s hard to have honest discussions with people when they know nothing about the topic they are discussing.

 

How the Democratic Party Became More Ideologically Cohesive

The Democratic Party used to the party of ideological diversity.  It had an urban coalition of cosmopolitan liberals, Northeastern Civil Rights Democrats and conservative Southern Democrats.  This diversity was fostered through the efforts of FDR who held together this diverse coalition through personality, war and handouts to Southern Democrats.

Of course, history is filled with the coffins of electoral coalitions and alignments and this Democratic coalition is all but dead.  Democrats have their urban and Civil Rights elements as well as a cosmopolitan liberal element in the Northeast but there are few, if any, true conservative Democrats anymore.  But as recently as 2008 this was not the case.

Before I go further a brief electoral history is relevant here.  Starting with JFK, the conservative Democratic element, particularly in the South, began to chafe under the cosmopolitan/Civil Rights Democratic element.  This allowed Nixon to deploy his Southern strategy.  Yet, despite GOP success federally in the South they struggled to win other federal or state races in the region.  Heck, the GOP tide at the Presidential level was even turned back somewhat with Clinton in 92 and 96.

But the GOP had already made inroads in the region at the Congressional level with their win in 1994.  It was only in 2006, a mere two years after George Bush was reelected and Republicans took control of the biggest Southern prize’s Congressional delegation, Texas, the Democratic Party finally began to branch out.  With the GOP in firm control of the Senate (55 seats) and the House (232), Democrats sought to branch their party out from the moderate/liberal rump party it had become.  Enter Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago, took over the DCCC in 2005 and advocated targeting key moderate and conservative districts represented by Republicans.  He largely eschewed DNC Chair Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy which advocated supporting progressives nationwide.  An unpopular war and unpopular President combined with strong Democratic recruiting heralded the party 6 seats in the Senate and 30 in the House giving them control of Congress.  A mere two years later the party would garner a massive 9 Senate seats and an additional 25 Congressional seats, many in conservative and Republican leaning districts in the South and West.

Hence, in 2009 the Democratic Party looked more like the party of FDR.  It was fairly strong in the South, dominant in the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast and held its own in the Midwest.  It’s control in the Senate rested on strength everywhere but the South.  Most notably, the conservative Blue Dog Caucus was enlarged to 54 members.

Then 2010 happened.  Suddenly the Democratic Party’s fortunes were thrown up in the air.  It’s longtime dominance of legislative races in LA, NC, MS, and AL disappeared.  Arkansas turned red.  Nationally, the GOP gained 63 Congressional seats and a significant 6 Senate seats which combined with Massachusetts gave them 47 overall.  Democrats were crushed nationwide in gubernatorial races and the hold the party held in the Midwest and South largely disappeared.  More important ideologically, many longtime white, conservative Democrats in the South (like Ike Skelton-MO) were defeated.

The strategy Emanuel had used to broaden the party’s appeal was derailed.  Obama’s reelection did not change this phenomenon.  Instead of focusing on candidate recruitment and utilizing the messages of 2006 and 2008, Democrats largely followed the Obama campaign’s lead on identity politics.  Carried by the President’s strong showing the party made inroads among Hispanics and women leading to Congressional gains but only in new and liberal districts (created by blue redistricters).

The 2014 election was an utter disaster for the party.  Not only did Democrats lose in the South but they lost moderate districts in Iowa, Nevada, Florida and New York.  They lost blue Governorships in Massachusetts, Illinois and Maryland and failed to win any new legislative chambers while losing 10 nationwide.  Not even the Democratic Midwestern blue firewall could withstand the Democratic wave (hi Senator Joni Ernst).  Former Southern legislatures that had held out for Democrats turned bright red (West Virginia).

Perhaps this could have been avoided.  Emanuel’s 2006 strategy focused on winning blue-collar whites on the economy and foreign policy.  Obama’s strategy in 08 fueled this plan though less so.  But starting with 2009 the Democratic Party has put far more emphasis on ideology and identity politics than broadening their coalition. In some places this strategy has worked.  Democrats are in firm control in multiracial California and are strong in many urban enclaves (though these places have few whites).  It has not worked in many other places. If one looks at an electoral map today they will find a Democratic Party literally controlling the fringes of the US map.  CA, OR and WA state in the Pacific Northwest and the Northeast (minus ME, MD, MA).  Of course, the Democratic Party did not exactly become notably liberal in the last three weeks.

Since 2008, the party has shed its moderate personal and appealed to its base.  Healthcare Reform, attempts to pass Cap and Trade and Dodd-Frank were it at the most basic level.  The Stimulus appealed to only unionized whites.  It is not surprising few conservatives and moderates look at it the same way anymore.  Unfortunately for conservative and moderate Democrats who have catered to more than the base they have paid the biggest price.

Worse, the party has run on the same message for virtually three straight elections with little deviation.  Democrats seemed genuinely shocked when their message on Healthcare Reform and notable social issues such as abortion were rebuffed in 2010 (except in Colorado).  In 2012, the same issues were rehashed minus Healthcare Reform, largely because Romney did not want to touch it (Romneycare baby).  Democrats found more fertile ground due to GOP blunders.  This year, Democrats followed the same script and picked a slate of standard candidates to run in open races on the same, old issues their base loved.  Two problems.  Their base did not seem to care anymore and Republicans adapted.

Most notable were the candidacies of Join Ernst (IA) and Corey Gardner (CO).  Both ran on avoiding debates on gay marriage and suppporting contraception.  Former hardline stances on abortion were put to the side and they stressed the hopeful change that the Obama of 2008 had.  Both their opponents stressed the social issues of the day but to little effect.  Calling their victories a romp would be an understatement.  Combine this with conservative Democratic retirements elsewhere in the Senate and the defeats of Kay Hagan (NC), Mark Pryor (AR) and Mark Begich (AK) and there are arguably only three conservative Democratic Senators left in the party and one is likely to lose this Saturday in Louisiana.

Democrat’s don’t have much chance to change course.  It is obvious their identity politics coalition is assembled around cultural issues.  Running away from fights on abortion, gay marriage and income inequality is simply something the base will not tolerate.  Thus, appealing to the middle (if there is such a thing) and increasingly conservative, white America has become harder and harder. Democrats comfort themselves with the thought that their minority-majority coalition is permanent and they can outrun losses among whites. The truth however is the GOP is making gains with traditionally Democratic groups while Democrats stagnate or fall further behind among whites.

If Democrats are thinking of trying to recapture whites for 2016 recent events have not helped the party.  The President’s move on immigration reform through Executive Action has made the base happy.  It appeals o the racial coalition the President has built.  But, notable Democrats representing largely white electorates have voiced concern and opposition.  Republicans are in lockstep opposition while a majority of the public (largely whites) is as well.  A Hillary Clinton is likely to be dragged down among whites due to this decision.

Democratic futures in 2016 look brighter largely because higher turnout means they will win some blue leaning Congressional seats they lost.  But it says nothing of how the party will fair in the post-Obama era where liberalism is now ascendant in the party and the conservative wing is all but silenced permanently.  Probably not well.

Addendum: Not to be forgotten, Elizabeth Warren speaks to the party’s modern coalition far better than Obama or Hillary Clinton ever could.  However, it is unclear how well she speaks to the rest of the country.