Missouri voters turned out Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, but they voted to increase their minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2023. Missouri and Utah legalized medical marijuana. Strong Republican Utah, Nebraska, and Idaho voted to expand Medicaid.
Ohio-based South Dakota native Matt Hildreth says those ballot measure wins and data from his polling suggest rural America is more progressive than its election of Trumpist candidates suggests:
Small town folks feel the system is rigged for the powerful and wealthy, and a clear majority (77 percent) of rural Americans think Congress is giving tax breaks to the wealthy instead of investing in rural areas.
Two out of three (67 percent) support offering free tuition to local community colleges and trade schools, and a similar number (64 percent) want Medicare to cover all Americans. Over half (54 percent) back an increase of the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Only 38 percent support outlawing abortions.
Over 90 percent of rural Americans think we should invest in small, local businesses and protect rural schools from closing, and over 85 percent think we should “protect hunting and fishing habitats through smart land management policies.”
Similarly, 80 percent of rural Americans want to pass policies that support rural grocery stores, pharmacies, and clinics, and three out of four rural residents want individuals with drug addictions sent to rehabilitation centers instead of prisons [Matt Hildreth, “Why Democratic Policies Outperform Democratic Politicians in Rural America,” The Hill, 2018.11.18].
Rehab instead of prison… yet South Dakota elects Republican incompetent Jason Ravnsborg on his promise of fictitious meth prisons.
Hildreth says Democrats miss that progressive boat because they don’t speak to those rural concerns:
Democrats tend to engage rural voters in one of two ways. They either outright ignore them, or they try to look more like Republicans.
Rural Americans want rural-specific solutions to rural-specific problems, and the policies they support come straight from the progressive platform. Democrats should lean into them.
In order to win again in rural communities, Democrats should embrace populist, pro-democratic messages that reject big money in politics, call out race-baiting strategies of division, expand access to programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and favor small, local businesses over major corporations [Hildreth, 2018.11.18].
Yeah, but North Dakota said no to marijuana, and voters in Alabama and West Virginia amended their constitutions to lay the groundwork for a post-Roe-overturn abortion ban.
I would love to see statewide and Legislative Democratic candidates try out Hildreth’s hypothesis in South Dakota in 2020. It would be an interesting test of whether South Dakota’s rural population lines up with Hildreth’s nationwide rural polling results on progressive policies… or whether the majority here is still convinced that policy doesn’t matter and that we get into heaven by voting Republican.
The answer to your question is: “The majority here (SD) is still convinced that policy doesn’t matter and that we get into heaven by voting Republican.”
I was about to comment something much like Richard. Somehow SD voters seem to have divided policy and candidates and made them unrelated; progressive issues tend to do well when directly voted upon while the very candidates who refuse to act upon those issues get elected/reelected.
I think it’s one thing to state support for a particular issue, but sometimes another when the rubber hits the road.
“over 85 percent think we should “protect hunting and fishing habitats through smart land management policies.”
Rural Minnesotans would agree, BUT, when faced with a policy to increase grasslands next to watercourses to filter out pollutants like nitrogen, the feces hit the oscillator. Even though those grassy areas would also provide more habitat and better fishing, which rural folks support, they didn’t want it to cost them anything.
In this urbanites and suburbanites are no different. It’s easy to be for something in theory. Much harder when there is an actual cost to the individual. It’s a NIMBY type thing.
o and Debbo: Hammer, meet nail. Good ideas given by members of the “other” tribe are bad ideas. It probably happens in reverse a bit, too, if we are being completely honest. Also, NIMBY is alive and well in SD.
Ask a question like: “Would you support an organization that provides preventive health care, birth control, pregnancy tests and other women’s health services?” you might get a different answer than asking “Do you support the funding of Planned Parenthood?”
Similarly, Progressives campaigning for the abolishment of ICE is a little like the Republicans railing against Obamacare. You have to have a plan for what would replace it, since INS doesn’t exist anymore. Meanwhile it just sounds like an unsubstantiated overreaction. I’d rather see us campaign for “immigration policy reform” which, really, both sides want. It’s just the details of what that reform looks like. Take out the racism and xenophobia on the right, and the indignant outrage on the left, and maybe we can find consensus points. Like the mythical path to citizenship that never seems to materialize.
Abolishment of ICE probably will not result in the same death and carnage as eliminating health care for millions.
Drumpf pulled a backroom maneuver to force 4-H into giving up their support for LGBTQ girls today. 4-H is overseen by wingnuts in Congress and they are continuing their war on women before Dems get control of the House and subpoenas.
The order by Drumpf affects at leastb8 states including iowa and has lead to the resignation of iowa’s 4-H leader who is getting death threats.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/trump-administration-secretly-forces-century-old-youth-organization-rescind-lgbtq-supportive-policy/
TAG, if I were king of the world I would not abolish ICE, rather I would change its function and the duties of it’s agents.
First, instead of rounding up people in the US without papers for isolation, interment and deportation, ICE agents would be directed to assist qualified people in obtaining the necessary papers to stay in the US. The remedy of deportation would be limited to the most extreme cases, such as folks who had been found guilty of violent crimes or serious felonies.
Next, I would move ICE funding to informational and assistance programs designed to work with people needing papers to come into compliance with US requirements, with ICE agents assigned to help applicants navigate those requirements.
There would still be no open borders. Our ICE border patrol agents would be located all along the border with the duty to assist people they encounter who seek help and admission to the US. Applicants would be screened to identify those with histories of violence or serious crimes, who, absent compelling circumstances, would be denied entry. Our border patrol agents would be well trained to know the areas of the country needing workers, and learn about programs designed to assist those in need get on their feet with adequate health care and temporary or permanent assistance as needed in individual cases.
Immigration problem solved.
bcb makes too much sense to gain an audience with the party of git tough on immigrant women and children. Next January we can ask Dems for Sainthood for bearcreekbat.
Plus bcb’s plan will save millions if not billions of taxpayer bucks which means wingnuts will hate it at least twice as much.
Kitchen table politics is what Democrats need do. NOem, trump and the dwarfs all stood in line to decapitate the ag industry. Democrats will get the Farm Bill inacted by being in charge of the House. New York Times 11/19/2018
“WASHINGTON — America’s farmers have been shut out of foreign markets, hit with retaliatory tariffs and lost lucrative contracts in the face of President Trump’s trade war. But a $12 billion bailout program Mr. Trump created to “make it up” to farmers has done little to cushion the blow, with red tape and long waiting periods resulting in few payouts so far.
According to the Department of Agriculture, just $838 million has been paid out to farmers since the first $6 billion pot of money was made available in September. Another pool of up to $6 billion is expected to become available next month. The government is unlikely to offer additional money beyond the $12 billion, according to Sonny Perdue, the agriculture secretary.”
NOem claimed that Sonny boy was her knight in armor. She lied. What else is new?
“Farm Bill enacted” is what it should have been. Spelling is not up to speed.
In fact, the president can’t enact trade laws, unless Congress let’s him. Am I right? So can the Democratic House unravel the trade mess #1 Dunce Dealmaker has created?
I nominate BCB to lead all facets of US immigration, unilaterally and with no barriers to his power, effective instantaneously.
Agreed?!
So, run nobody for Legislature, pour all money into ten ballot measures to fix our greatest problems?
Hey, TAG, did any South Dakota Democrats run on abolishing ICE?
Somehow, as you point out, there remains a glimmer of hope that the majority trumpsters are not completely mad.
Yet the author of Fantasyland makes a good case that they are mostly mad.
https://thereformedbroker.com/2018/11/09/playing-with-fire/
The LA Times belatedly steps up calling the administration’s news spinning by its name: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-propaganda-fake-news-tv-culture-20181116-story.html
Mad as in angry, and mad as in nuts. From John’s first link:
Voting in denial of reality, in a desire just to make liberals mad—what else could explain the choice of Kristi Noem and Jason Ravnsborg to run our state?
Wow, the links posted by John, and the references in the linked articles, suggest a frightening, but rather apparent truth. In particular, Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History, by Kurt Andersen, as Cory quotes from, looks like an incredibly important book.
Thanks John!
I have noticed wingnuts have damped down mentioning alternate facts recently. I had hoped it was going away. Maybe it just went underground.
I agree with everything Debbo says.
How are wingnuts going to protect Drumpf from perjuring himself when subpoenas come calling? I am sure they have a plan.
Corey: “Hey, TAG, did any South Dakota Democrats run on abolishing ICE?”
I hope not. It would have been as counter-productive to getting elected as California Republicans running on building the wall. What? They DID do that? Wow. I guess fealty to Trump is the one wedge issue they simply can’t shed and still win a Rebublican primary.
The way I see it, any good idea can be, and likely will be twisted into a party-identity wedge issue, thus rendering it untenable as actual policy. The strategy of getting elected by firing up your base Trumps and runs counter to the strategy of passing good policies that lots of people want. JMO
bcb: Great immigration solution! The only problem with it is that you can’t just distill it down to an easily-chant-able slogan that fires up one side and pisses off the other.
Now that you have fixed immigration, please work on healthcare. Thanks in advance.
Perhaps the best example of the sort of “separation of idea from party (tribe)” world view is the Repubs hatred of Obama Care – even though it was essentially a Repub idea to begin with.
Speaking of immigration, an Obama appointed Fed Judge slapped Drumpf’s orange fingers and said he cannot deny immigrants entry into America- https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18102879/asylum-trump-lawsuit-judge
Cory: “So, run nobody for Legislature, pour all money into ten ballot measures to fix our greatest problems?”
I am starting to believe this actually is the path to take for progressive issues: otherwise SD kills the messenger.
Drumpf wastes millions moar taxpayer bucks. Bored border troops are going home after a week doing nothing on the border.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/trump-recalls-troops-southern-border-reports-emerged-extremely-bored/
Mike, the troops did exactly what they were sent to do — they stirred up nationalist hatred and motivated the right’s base to get out and vote. I rather think that all paid a measurable dividend to the Trump wing of the GOP.
Re: your last line, Cory: I think it’s probably less that voting R is seen as a ticket to heaven than voting D is seen as a mortal sin. It’s the “anti” sentiment that’s more powerful: Hillary was turned into the Great Satan, and sure, one might have qualms about some Republican ideas, but *heaven forbid* one ever vote for *them* — those heathens on the “D” side.
I really wonder if avoiding the labels altogether would be a better strategy here. What if all the Dems in redder places just ran as independents? Independent candidates would match our growing segment of independent voters. Especially on the local level, the right-wing media machine would have a harder time tarring those independents with easy “them” labels.
Dems are currently playing a game in which the de facto rules are written by Republicans — Fox News, Rush, et al play a huge role in what people believe here, and if progressive-thinking folks engage on the R vs. D terms that those talking heads set, they are playing a numbers game that they will lose in many parts of South Dakota. I think they need to start playing a different game.
The troop props will only be visited in the United States, trump is too much of a coward to visit where 60 American soldiers have been killed during his regime. Washington Post 11/20/2018
““He’s never been interested in going,” the official said of Trump visiting troops in a combat zone, citing conversations with the president. “He’s afraid of those situations. He’s afraid people want to kill him.”
Pressure for Trump to make such a visit has been building for months. Eliot Cohen, a former George W. Bush administration official and Trump critic, has raised the issue regularly in public.
“The point is American servicemen and women are on the ground in these places,” Cohen said in an interview. “They are getting killed. I think any good leader would want to see something for themselves. And they would want to do something for the troops other than using them as props.”
W. Bush started this fiasco and went to see the troops under his command. President Obama inherited this crap storm and he went to visit the troops first hand immediately after becoming our elected president. trump is too busy tweeting about his toughness than to be bothered. He shows further contempt by not allowing the 45,000 employees needed to run the Veterans Administration that now oversees 2.5 million more veterans caused by this 18 year war of the worlds.
Heidi Marttila-Losure
2018-11-20 at 09:48
Ivanka Drumpf has been found to have sent hundreds of government emails on her private server. Her excuse- she didn’t know it was illegal. Can we throw her in jail now and do we have to wait until the whole crime family is found guilty?
Oh, wait- I’m sure there is nothing to see here, folks. Probably just a buttload of emoluments violations and passing secrets to Saudis. Wingnuts won’t do anything about it. No hearings, no cries for justice unless it is HRC’s name that comes up.
O, I suspect you have the motive pinned down. What about me, though. I just bought bananas from Guatemala and Honduras- doing my share to support the caravan with over 5oo known criminals in it. I am truly a rebel. :)
Mike you rebel. May the Force be with you.
“Fantasyland” sounds like an outstanding book. I’m not likely to read it because I think if I did I’d spend the rest of my life curled up in my bed, head under the covers.
Why did Dems drop out and go independent- We have yet to see a Dem idea that is much different than the Republicans other than social issues. Dems like Republicans play follow the leader without being objective.
The SD Dem party criticizing Noem for hiring a lobbyist after running a lobbyist for Lt. Gov is a prime example of the hypocrisy Dems have. Seriously that is just bad all the way around. Noem still stinks but the Dem Party lost all believability.
NO LABELS is not good- The group that is pushing it is a group of Democrat and Republican millionaires that want to demolish Social Security and Medicare, among other things. Literally every social program would be cut if this group keeps gaining steam. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-slick-no-labels-effor_b_1678389.html
Please Dear Democrats , Independents left your party because it really isn’t that great anymore, do us a favor and stop trying to co-opt us or bring us into the fold.
Don’t bring independents into the fold? Then what, we should just you all sit there and not vote or engage or hold Republicans accountable?
I am no Michelle Lavallee fan, but for the record, the state lobbyist registry shows no record of Michelle Lavallee serving as a lobbyist in Pierre in recent years. Relevant or not to Hildreth’s thesis (and I will agree that the failure of Amendment W supports the notion that rural voters don’t give much of a darn about electing folks whose strings are pulled by lobbyists), I welcome evidence to the contrary.
The good news, Mr. H, is that with the thundering approval of that other Amendment, the one they called Z, no more can the heinous out-of-state hoodwinkers pile all that trash into a single measure and foist it upon South Dakotans. So, if you or others want to take the free lunches away from the legislatures and prevent them from having a friend buy them an adult beverage at one of those famous establishments in Pierre, you can certainly float that idea again.
You just can’t hide all the money grubbing, unaccountable tribunal, judge/jury/executioner stuff behind “no free lunch for lobbyists.”
And that is good news indeed.
I can see the point, O: notice the SDGOP’s attack on my proposed initiative reform, phrased less on the merits of the entire proposal and more on branding it with my name and identity as a liberal Democrat. Republicans don’t want to debate policy; they want to push their narrative that “liberal Democrats” are evil. That’s a much easier way to reach their low-information voters.
Heidi, if we abandoned our label and ran as independents, the Republicans would still sell their label and brand us as evil liberal Democrats in disguise. Sutton gave that thesis a dry run, and he got painted as Clinton and Sanders. Being who we are would be easier and would win more votes than pretending we aren’t who we are.
Plus, abandoning our label only surrenders further to the Republican narrative.
Mr. H, float the idea of an unaccountable tribunal with moneys handed to them outside of the oversight of the legislatures, all by itself on its own balloon, and see what sort of policy decision the voters make.
I’m saying, if your policy is to take free lunch away from the legislatures, that’s fine but float it on its own balloon too.
If you believe that Republicans, like me, just want to paint the crazy ideas with your name to make them fail, then you have admitted that you are destined to fail because people will vote against you because of you.
Grudz, the GOP attack on W enjoyed the collaboration of Democrat Karen Soli. Well-played, GOP.
But that doesn’t negate the point I make about the Republican impulse to personalize and labelize every measure they can. I grant that the strategy works for many voters—unlike Democrats, Republicans seem to recognize what works at the polls and not adopt futile strategies—but that doesn’t mean said strategy is honest.