2018 Portends Democratic Majority Coalition

The U.S. Elections Project has established that a majority (50.3%) of Americans eligible to vote participated in the 2018 general election. (The President ensured that both supporters and opponents were heavily motivated to vote.) And, with the Democrats winning 53.4% of the popular vote and 54% of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to the Republicans’ 44.8% of the vote (an 8.6% margin), the Democrats have the bragging rights that Americans clearly expressed the policy direction for which they wish the country to move forward.

Of course, it’s never that black and white/simple. Yet, the gist of the message is clear.

This was an election that does not bear over-thinking. Political strategists are warranted in searching for every nuance and understanding every vote as they build their next campaigns. For the rest of us, here are the other major takeaways:

1. It is to the benefit of the Democrats that they do not control the U.S. Senate. It lessens the pressure to take policy positions that may alienate swing voters and which have low likelihood of becoming law. It allows the party to focus on issues that are most practical in a divided nation and which emphasize its position as the more mature political party.

2. As those who study elections would point out, there are enough voters who sympathize with both major parties or vote based on specific issues that these voters can flip control of the House as they switch allegiance depending on the political environment. Will the almost 10-point margin of those who support the Democratic vision/balance to President Trump be there in the 2020 presidential election?  Or will circumstances influence a shift in some manner back towards the Republicans?  Essentially, despite the extraordinary political polarization today, it is not enough to predetermine national elections for the Democrats…for now.

3. Each national election in the near future will find the Democrats in a stronger position as forecast demographic changes take hold, the Census is conducted, and new political districts are drawn.
a. For example, the federal government’s National Center for Educational Statistics has projected that in two years, about half of the 14 – 17 year-olds will be ethnic minorities and that the share will continue to grow. Only 22 percent of ethnic minorities voted Republican this past election. Assuming the Democratic Party will be more in touch with ethnic minorities and the negative and diminishing view of the GOP among young minorities, this demographic development will continue to boost Democratic political fortunes.
b. Detractors will point to the 2016 presidential election and decry that “demographics are destiny.” I will posit that those touting demographic change have for years over-hyped the phenomenon as well as jumped the gun. Nevertheless, I believe we have finally reached the point where demographic change can help support a steady Democratic edge in national elections, and that edge will become more stable and stronger in the years to come. The just-completed election shows this through growing numbers and shares of minority, female, and young voters.

c. Population growth somewhat minimizes gerrymandering that favor Republicans as urban/suburban populations will diminish rural influence when the larger growth is factored into the drawing of new districts.

4. The Republicans are in a Catch-22 as they must please an increasingly obstinate and demanding base.
a. Yes, the Democrats have a similar problem with their progressive wing. Yet, it must be noted that Democratic voters have the same overall goals and concerns. Democrats are at least moving in the same direction and therefore have more flexibility to maneuver in uniting their voters.
b. That cannot be said for the economic/mainstream, populist, and evangelical wings of the GOP. They have accepted their alliance of convenience and even support some of their partners’ defining policy positions. Yet, as those positions move further from the mainstream, some GOP target voters become uneasy and have even been driven to the Democratic fold.
c. Republicans have made some uncertain policy promises to their base supporters and some of those supporters have demanded to collect or threatened withdraw their support, if not from political life altogether. In some of these cases, it is unlikely that those promises can be kept as the general public and practicality are leagues away.
d. The GOP strategy appears in part to be spin and misinformation to hold their base together. It is a strategy of holding onto power for as long as is possible and delaying the inevitable. Some of the base may eventually catch on. Others will pass on, potentially leaving a void less likely to be filled by new American voters. (I have joked that one of the best investments that the Republican Party can make is in nursing homes.)

Contemporary politics can be seen as divided between angry, resentful, and retiring Republicans and Democrats seeking a unified, substantive vision for a long-lasting winning coalition.

In the end, nothing is guaranteed in each election. Nevertheless, as the aforementioned dynamics continue on their current trajectory, there will continue to be the movement of voters towards the more cosmopolitan, classical liberal, and educated viewpoint of today’s Democrats versus the increasingly populist, nostalgic, and authoritarian one of the Republicans. The individual qualities of candidates will matter less while the party brand will matter more. This past election has significant examples, such as Congressmen Will Hurd and Carlos Curbelo, of high-quality incumbent Republicans who stood up to the President for their constituents’ values and still suffering substantial abandonment by voters.

It can be a slow process to dominance but the Democrats have the wind at their backs nationally and in many key areas.

ANSWER: It’s about Everyone

The Question of Bridging the Rural Divide

We are a nation adamantly divided.  Partisans on both sides have dug in their heels and stubbornly hold onto their ideological and political positions for nothing less than full victory.

The divide is most clearly represented by the results of the presidential election where the significant factor was college education – those who have it and those who do not, which is reflected in an urban versus rural split, as significantly more urban dwellers tend to have a college education.

So how do leaders bridge this divide?  (Despite the rural constituency’s importance, I find some Democrats refusing to acknowledge that rural denizens have unique issues that should be addressed.)

I believe the answer is simple.  It hearkens back to times when politicians were less likely to turn away from constituents who were not part of their winning coalition.  As practical and judicious, elected officials should listen to and work for the best policy solutions for everyone.  Include, do not exclude.

The recent Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that “the political divide between rural and urban America is more cultural than it is economic, rooted in rural residents’ deep misgivings about the nation’s rapidly changing demographics, their sense that Christianity is under siege, and their perception that the federal government caters most to the needs of people in big cities.”

As such, rural citizens are much more disaffected from urbanites than the other way around:

• 68 percent of rural residents say their values differ from people who live in cities, while only 48 percent of urban residents make the same comparison with rural dwellers.
• 41 percent of rural residents say their values are “very different” from city folk, but only 18 percent of urbanites say rural values are “very different” from their own.

Key, the survey shows that disagreements between rural and urban America center on the perception of fairness:  “Who wins and loses in the new American economy, who deserves the most help in society, and whether the federal government shows preferential treatment towards certain groups of people.”

As before, there is less influence found from economic distress in rural support for Trump.  Those who lament their community’s job opportunities report supporting Trump by 14 percentage points more than for Clinton.  Trump’s margin was 30 points among those who thought job prospects were excellent or good.

The largest and key fissures between Americans living in cities and those in less-dense areas are rooted in misgivings about the country’s changing demographics and resentment about perceived biases in federal assistance.  Race permeates these issues.

Agree with statement that blacks and Hispanics losing out because of preferences for Caucasians is the larger problem than the reverse.

• 56 percent – urban
• 37 percent – suburban
• 34 percent – rural

Agree with statement that Caucasians losing out because of preferences for blacks and Hispanics is the larger problem than the reverse.

• 34 percent – rural
• 27 percent – suburban
• 23 percent – urban

Agree with statement that immigrants are a burden on the nation.

• 42 percent – rural
• 31 percent – suburban
• 16 percent – urban

 

In this context, rural Americans are skeptical that the federal government is fair or effective at improving people’s economic situations.

• A total of 64 percent say federal efforts to improve living standards either have little impact or make things worse.
  • 31 percent – do not have much impact
  • 33 percent – make things worse
• 56 percent of rural residents say the federal government does more to help people living in and around large cities.
• 37 percent feel the federal government treat both urban and rural areas equally.

Policies for improving the employment situation in their areas that rural Americans support:

• 68 percent – decreasing regulations on businesses
• 79 percent – lowering taxes on businesses
• 93 percent – infrastructure projects
  • 74 percent – “very important”

WSJ: RURAL AMERICA – THE NEW ‘INNER CITY’

An analysis of the conditions that may have lead to the anger of rural and blue collar America.  Republicans and Democrats should seek constructive solutions.  Success in doing so could shape the balance of political power in this country.

A Wall Street Journal analysis shows that since the 1990s, sparsely populated counties have replaced large cities as America’s most troubled areas by key measures of socioeconomic well-being – a decline that is accelerating.

• With many of these measures – poverty, teenage births, divorce, death rates from heart disease and cancer, reliance on federal disability insurance, and male labor-force participation, rural counties now rank the worst among the four major U.S. population groupings (the others are big cities, suburbs, and medium/small metro areas).
• Previously, for more than a century, rural towns sustained themselves, and often thrived, through a mix of agriculture and light manufacturing.  Until recently, programs funded by counties and townships, combined with the charitable efforts of churches and community groups, provided a viable social safety net in lean times.
• In the 1980s and for years afterwards, the nation’s basket cases were its urban areas – where a toxic stew of crime, drugs, and suburban flight conspired to make large cities the slowest-growing and most troubled places.
• By 2013, in the majority of sparsely populated U.S. counties, more people died than were born – the first time that has happened since universal birth registration began in the 1930s.  In fact, the total rural population – accounting for births, deaths, and migration – had declined for five straight years.

From Breadbasket to Basket Case

• As jobs in manufacturing and agriculture continue to vanish, America’s heartland faces a larger, more existential crisis.
• Just two decades ago, the onset of new technologies, in particular the internet, offered the potential to boost the fortunes of rural areas by allowing more people to work from anywhere and freeing companies to expand and invest outside metropolitan areas.  Unfortunately, those gains never materialized.  (For example, while President Barack Obama’s administration pushed expanded broadband access, Obama found that service providers were reluctant to enter sparsely populated towns.)
• In medical health, even after adjusting for age, rural areas have become markedly less healthy than America’s cities.  In 1980, rural areas had lower rates of heart disease and cancer.  By 2014, those positions have flipped.
• Also, in the 1980s, rural Americans had lower teen birth and lower divorce rates than their urban counterparts.  Now, those positions also have flipped.

Hitting the Floor

• Although federal and state antipoverty programs were not limited to urban areas, they often failed to address the realities of the rural poor.  The 1996 welfare overhaul put more city dwellers back to work, for example, but did not take into account the lack of public transportation and child care that made it difficult for lower-income people in small towns to hold down jobs.
• In addition, as employers left small towns, many young residents packed up and left, too.  In 1980, the median age of people in small towns and big cities almost matched.  Today, the median age in small towns is about five years above that in big cities.
• As other areas saw an upswing in quality of life, rural areas struggled to find ways to harness changes and maintain the levels of their own quality.
  • Health and health care have declined in rural areas.
    • Consolidation has shut down many rural hospitals, which also struggle from a shortage of patients with employer-sponsored insurance.
    • Rural residents say irregular care left them sicker, aggravated by long drives for treatment and high rates of smoking and obesity.
    • The opioid epidemic – and a lack of access to treatment for it – also has compounded the damage.
  • A third of adults in urban areas hold a college degree, almost twice the share in rural counties, census figures show.
  • Opioid abuse has contributed towards driving up crime rates.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-america-is-the-new-inner-city-1495817008

7,000 Doctors from Travel Ban Countries Practice in Underserved U.S. Communities

Some quick big picture thoughts before the purpose of this message.

After advocating for balance and grounded decision-making after the election, I have discovered that I was wrong.  Organizations such as No Labels and shining stars such as John McCain and Lindsay Graham have worked to keep debate and action on a principled and sensible course.  And they should continue to do so.

Nevertheless, the battle lines are primarily drawn, as we saw in last year’s election, between the college-educated and worldly versus the non-college educated and more traditional.

As with the tea parties, it is clear the progressives will stand their ground and fight vigorously for their principles.  Unless the debate is based on fake news and lies, everyone should have it all out.  It is as if with a dysfunctional family or a family with a lot of problems.  Nothing gets worked out and righted unless all the ugly emotions, dirt, lies and facts are hurled out to be faced and argued.  It is going to be a long two – four years.  So have at it.

***

This story not only provides another important angle to the issue but assists in highlighting the myopia of many (nativist or not) Americans who have not, do not or refuse to see the international engagement and contributions that meet Americans’ basic and crucial needs and desires.  (I am avoiding the terms foreign and global because their connotations turn off many of the Americans that should hear this message.)

• A study from Harvard and MIT researchers found 7,000 doctors practicing in the U.S. are from countries covered under President Trump’s travel ban.  Many of these doctors work in rural and impoverished parts of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia that strongly supported Trump’s White House bid. These 7,000 doctors provide an estimated 14M medical appointments per year.
• The ban could block thousands of immigrant medical professionals from staying in or entering the country, potentially affecting the health of millions of Americans, especially those in rural areas.
• American health care relies substantially on foreign-born labor, especially in rural and high-risk urban areas where hospitals and clinics struggle to fill jobs amid what medical associations describe as a catastrophic shortage of doctors. The shortfall is only projected to grow worse in coming years amid the aging of the Baby Boom generation.
• While most foreign-born doctors already in the country are unlikely to be directly affected by the order, medical groups are sounding the alarm about the danger that expiring work visas may be delayed or not renewed at all, forcing physicians to leave the country. And they also say the country’s next generation of doctors could be at risk, amid lingering questions about whether students from the affected countries will be allowed to study and work in the U.S.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/immigrant-doctors-and-their-patients-fear-impact-of-travel-ban-231344422.html