Showing posts with label red. Show all posts
Showing posts with label red. Show all posts

Thursday, November 10, 2022

Texas Is Still A Bright Red State








Democrats were hoping to make some inroads in Texas on Election Night, but it didn't happen. Note that Republicans won every statewide race by a significant margin -- and they won most districts for the U.S. House and the Texas Legislature. It is obvious that Texas is still a bright red state.

I still believe change will come. Whites are already a minority in Texas schools, and will soon be in the population as a whole. But it may take another couple of decades for this to start showing up in elections.

Friday, May 06, 2022

U.S. Is Divided Into Red & Blue - SC Decision Made It Worse


The United States is fast dividing itself into two parts -- one red and one blue. The recent revealing of the Supreme Court decision on Roe vs. Wade being overturned just makes that division worse. Here is Robert Reich's take on this serious situation:

The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision to reverse Roe v. Wade (an early draft of which was leaked Monday) doesn’t ban abortions; it leaves the issue to the states. As a result, it will put another large brick in the growing wall separating Blue and Red America.

Some say we’re on the verge of a civil war, but that’s not right. It won’t be a formal secession (we tried that once) but a kind of benign separation analogous to unhappily married people who don’t want to go through the trauma of a formal divorce. We are already quietly splitting into two America’s – one largely urban, racially and ethnically diverse, and young; the other largely rural or exurban, white, and older – each running according to different laws and with different sources of revenue. 

The split is accelerating. Red ZIP codes are getting redder and blue ZIP codes, bluer. Of the nation's total 3,143 counties, the number of super landslide counties — where a presidential candidate won at least 80 percent of the vote — jumped from 6 percent in 2004 to 22 percent in 2020.

Surveys show Americans find it increasingly important to live around people who share their political values. Animosity toward those in the opposing party is higher than at any time in living memory. 42 percent of registered voters believe Americans in the other party are “downright evil.” Almost 40 percent would be upset at the prospect of their child marrying someone from the opposite party. Even before the 2020 election, when asked if violence would be justified if the other party won the election, 18.3 percent of Democrats and 13.8 percent of Republicans responded in the affirmative.

While Red states make it nearly impossible to get abortions, they’re making it easier than ever to buy guns — even easier to carry concealed guns without a permit. They’re suppressing votes. (In Florida and Texas, teams of “election police” have been created to crack down on the rare crime of voter fraud, another fallout from Trump’s Big Lie.) They’re banning the teaching of America’s history of racism. They’re requiring transgendered students to use bathrooms and join sports teams that reflect their gender at birth. They’re making it harder to protest; more difficult to qualify for unemployment benefits or other forms of public assistance; and almost impossible to form labor unions. And they’re passing “bounty” laws — enforced not by governments, which can be sued in federal court, but by rewards to private citizens for filing lawsuits — on issues ranging from classroom speech to abortions to vaccinations.

Blue states are moving in the opposite direction. Several, including Colorado and Vermont, are codifying a right to abortion. Some are helping cover abortion expenses for out-of-staters. When Idaho proposed a ban on abortions that empowers relatives to sue anyone who helps terminate a pregnancy after six weeks, nearby Oregon approved $15 million to help cover the abortion expenses of patients from other states. Marylandand Washington have expanded access and legal protections to out-of-state abortion patients. One package of pending California bills would expand access to California abortions and protect abortion providers from out-of-state legal action. 

After the governor of Texas ordered state agencies to investigate parents for child abuse if they provide certain medical treatments to their transgender children,California lawmakers proposed making the state a refuge for transgender youths and their families. Another California proposal would thwart enforcement of out-of-state court judgments removing children from the custody of parents who get them gender-affirming health services. California is also about to enforce a ban on ghost guns and assault weapons with a California version of Texas’ recent six-week ban on abortion, featuring $10,000 bounties to encourage lawsuits from private citizens against anyone who sells, distributes or manufactures those types of firearms.

The new separation extends even to government revenue. A little-noticed trend is toward a growing share of total government taxing and spending occurring in the states — thereby making Blue states (which are overall wealthier than Red states) more financially autonomous.

For years, the inhabitants of Blue states have been sending more tax dollars to the federal government than they get back (in the form of federal assistance to the poor, education, social services, and infrastructure), while Red states have been sending Washington fewer dollars then they receive back. But the significance of this Blue state subsidy to Red states is declining as an ever-larger percentage of total federal and state taxes paid by the inhabitants of Blue states are being spent in such Blue States. (A record half of all government revenue is now raised and spent by state and local governments.)

We’re also seeing more coordination among Blue states. During the pandemic, Blue states joined together on policies that Red states rejected — such as purchasing agreements for personal protective equipment, strategies for reopening businesses as COVID subsided, even on travel from other states with high levels of COVID. (At one point, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut required travelers from states with high positivity rates — Arkansas, Florida, North and South Carolina, Texas, and Utah — to quarantine for two weeks before entering.)

We are splitting more quickly than anyone imagined. But the split raises a host of questions. For one, what will happen to the poor in Red states, who are disproportionately people of color? “States rights” was always a cover for segregation and harsh discrimination. The poor — both white and people of color — are already especially burdened by anti-abortion legislation because they can’t afford travel to a Blue state to get an abortion. They’re also hurt by the failure of Red states to expand Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act; by Red state de facto segregation in public schools; and by Red state measures to suppress votes. 

One answer is for Democratic administrations and congresses in Washington to prioritize the needs of the Red state poor and make extra efforts to protect the civil and political rights of people of color in Red states. The failure of the Senate to muster enough votes to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, let alone revive the Voting Rights Act, suggests how difficult this will be. 

But Blue states have a potential role here. They should spend additional resources on the needs of Red state residents, such as Oregon is now doing for people from outside Oregon who seek abortions. They should prohibit state funds from being spent in any state that bans abortions or discriminates on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender. California already bars anyone on a state payroll (including yours truly, who teaches at Berkeley) from getting reimbursed for travel to states that discriminate against LGBTQ people (as of now, that list includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia).

Where will all this end? Not with two separate nations. What America is going through is less like a civil war and more like Brexit – a lumbering, mutual decision to go separate ways on most things but remain connected on a few big things (such as national defense, monetary policy, and civil and political rights). We’ll still be America. But we’re becoming two versions of America. The open question is analogous to the one faced by every couple that separates — how will we find ways to be civil toward each other?

Sunday, September 12, 2021

Politics Is The Biggest Factor In Response To The Pandemic




Our national response to the continuing pandemic has been disappointing. Too many people are refusing to wear masks or get vaccinated. But the difference between the masked/vaccinated and the unmasked/unvaccinated doesn't have much to do with age, gender, race, religion,  sexual preference, or national origin. The biggest factor of all is sadly -- POLITICS. Republicans and red-states are far more likely to refuse to wear masks or get vaccinated, while Democrats and blue-states are far more likely to do both -- and that is born out by the statistics.

The following is from Philip Bump in The Washington Post:

It’s obvious that there’s an overlap of vaccination rates, party identity and pandemic outcomes that intertwines the discussion about the pandemic with partisan politics. It is inescapably the case that, even if party doesn’t play a significant role in pandemic outcomes, the debate is largely framed through a partisan lens anyway — often to a hyperbolic degree.

One reason for that is that there is an obvious string of correlations here. More deaths from the virus occur in places where there are more cases. There are more cases in places where vaccination rates are lower. Vaccination rates are lower in places that voted more heavily Republican in 2020. . . .

For example, here (top chart) is the relationship between cases, deaths, vaccinations and 2020 vote as of Thursday. Of the 23 states that have new case totals per capita higher than the nation overall, 21 voted for Donald Trump in November. Sixteen are among the 17 states that have the lowest rates of vaccination. Of the 18 states that have new death totals higher than the national ratio, 14 voted for Trump and 12 are among the 17 least-vaccinated states.

It’s also important to note that the pandemic is not unfolding the way it did last summer. If we take the difference between each state’s per-capita cases and deaths relative and the national figure and average it by 2020 vote, we see that red states are doing much worse relative to the country on the whole than are blue states. The vertical dashed lines below (middle chart) indicate Sept. 9, 2020, and Sept. 9, 2021 — that is, now and one year ago. Not only are cases and deaths now higher relative to the country overall than they were then, but the figures in blue states are much lower.

If we look at the same patterns using the vaccination-rate groupings (bottom chart), we see that it’s the least-vaccinated states that are being hit hardest, followed by the middle group and then the most-vaccinated states. . . .

Again, the chain of correlation here is indisputable: Republicans have been less concerned about the virus, less likely to embrace practices such as masking, more likely to express opposition to vaccination and (obviously) voted more heavily for Trump — and now, after vaccinations have been made broadly available, states that are seeing the most new cases and deaths are states that are less heavily vaccinated and were more supportive of Trump last year. All of that is obviously and provably true, making it much harder to assert that politics is not playing any role. . . .

The Pew Research Center regularly polls Americans to gauge the demographic identifiers that spur the broadest disagreement on issues. You might think that it’s gender or age or race. It isn’t. It’s party, by a mile. That party is now intertwined with the extent to which America is willing to tamp down on a deadly virus is, to put it mildly, disadvantageous.

Friday, March 09, 2018

Changes To Obamacare Will Hurt Red States More Than Blue


Trump and the Republicans weren't able to repeal Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), but they did make some changes to it. Ironically, those changes will hurt the residents of red states more than blue states.

Here's what Ronald Brownstein said about this in The Atlantic:

The battle over health care is moving to the states.

The most immediate effect of the recent steps taken by Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to unravel the Affordable Care Act will be to create an even deeper gulf between red and blue states in the availability and quality of health insurance. An array of blue states are exploring ways not only to blunt Trump’s moves, but also to reach beyond the ACA with new mechanisms to expand coverage. Simultaneously, many red states are leaning into the rollback—both by seeking to limit access to Medicaid, and by embracing Trump’s efforts to deregulate insurance markets in ways that will restore the pre-ACA separation between the healthy and sick.

“In the states that don’t act to strengthen their regulation, you are going to see these non-group-insurance markets weaken” by eroding the risk-sharing between the healthy the and sick that the ACA required, Linda Blumberg, a fellow at the Urban Institute who closely studies the law, says. “It really takes us major steps back to where we were prior to [the law].”

Two big moves from Trump and congressional Republicans are expanding this wedge between the states. The first is the tax bill’s provision repealing the ACA’s individual mandate, which required all Americans to buy insurance. The second is the administration’s recent proposal to significantly expand the availability of “short-term” health plans that don’t guarantee minimum benefits or prohibit discrimination against consumers with preexisting health problems.

Those two measures encourage healthier people to leave the ACA exchanges, and either purchase the skimpy, but less expensive, short-term plans or forego insurance altogether. In a recent study, the Urban Institute projected about 9 million people would abandon the exchanges for one of those options. That would leave an older and sicker population remaining on the exchanges, which would raise premiums and reduce access to care, particularly for those who earn too much to qualify for the federal subsidies the ACA established.

But states have a surprising degree of autonomy to block Trump’s moves, and blue states are positioning themselves to do so. Five Democratic-leaning states in the Northeast already functionally prohibit the sale of short-term plans, and several others—Washington state has moved the quickest—may join them with regulatory or legislative limits.

Even more ambitiously, about a half-dozen states are examining ways to restore a mandate on individuals to buy insurance. The conversations are most advanced in Maryland, where state legislators are racing against an April 9 adjournment date to pass an individual mandate with an intriguing twist: The legislation would allow anyone without insurance to funnel their penalty into an account they could apply to buying coverage the next year.

As Maryland demonstrates, blue states are looking beyond blocking Trump’s moves and moving toward expanding the ACA framework. Several states are exploring proposals to restore a public option to compete with private insurers—a top liberal priority dropped from the ACA amid resistance from the insurance industry and centrist Democrats. Through the new proposals, Democrats would allow the uninsured to buy into state Medicaid plans. . . .

The Urban Institute forecasts that the administration’s moves against the ACA could increase insurance premiums on the exchanges by fully 18 percent next year. Larry Levitt, the senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me that Congress could offset most of that possible increase by passing “reinsurance” legislation from Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. Their bill would reimburse insurers for covering the most expensive patients. But with the administration privately demanding exorbitant concessions in exchange for accepting such a plan, the measure’s prospects appear dim.

That means health insurers are likely to announce major premium increases during the next ACA open-enrollment period—just weeks before the midterms. In a January national Kaiser poll, three-fifths of Americans said they would blame Trump and the GOP for any further ACA problems. By creating the conditions for big premium hikes this fall, Republicans in Washington and the states appear determined to test that proposition.

The chart above, using information from a Kaiser Family Foundation Poll, was done between January 15th and 21st of a random national sample of 1,215 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.

Thursday, March 08, 2018

Texas Is Still A Red State (Despite Early Voting Numbers)



The early voting numbers published by the office of the Texas Secretary of State showed the number of voters who voted in each party's primary. Those numbers only contained the votes from the 15 largest Texas counties, but those counties contain about two-thirds of the state's registered voters. Those early voting numbers looked very good for Democrats. In those counties, about 45,000 more Democrats voted than Republicans.

The hope was that Democrats had held their own in the other counties (containing the other third of registered voters), and would keep pace with Republicans on election day. That would have shown Texas was on the verge of turning blue.

But that did not happen. In those other counties and on election day, the Republican Party reigned supreme. The charts above show the bad news. While Democrats did turn out in large numbers, the Republicans turned out in even larger numbers -- outvoting Democrats by more than half a million votes (Republicans 1,537,868 - Democrats 1,017,150). The Republican voters made up 10.08% of the state's registered voters, while the Democratic voters made up only 6.67%.

Those are not numbers that show a state on the verge of turning blue (or even purple). That day will come (thanks to demographic changes), but it's still a future change.

Having said that, there's still some things for Democrats to be encouraged by. They did turn out in record numbers for the primary. And considering the anger in the country, they could flip one or two U.S. House districts from Republican to Democrat. There is also an outside chance that Beto O'Rourke could unseat Ted Cruz in the Senate race. Cruz is not as popular as other statewide Republicans, and if some things happen (a large turnout by young voters and by voters in the Valley and urban areas, a significant number of women abandoning the GOP, and a well-run and financed campaign by O'Rourke) there could be a minor miracle in November.

Texas is not yet ready to turn blue -- sweeping statewide offices for Democrats and flipping the majority of House districts to Democrats. Those who thought that are simply wrong. But progress could be made this November, and that's good for now.

Thursday, July 07, 2016

Trump Is Doing Worse In Red States Than Romney Did


The chart above is from Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com, and it should worry Donald Trump (and the Republican Party). To win the White House, Trump needs to win all of the red states and then win some "purple" states that Romney lost in 2012. But he is doing worse in those red states than Romney was doing at this time in 2012. If the red state voters aren't solidly behind Trump, how is he going to convince purple state voters to back him (where Clinton is slightly outperforming what Obama did in 2012)?

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Blue State / Red State















It is just a fact of American politics that some states are blue and others are red -- that is that some states are pretty reliably Democratic and others lean heavily toward the Republicans.

The Hill did a study of each American state and placed them on a continuum from the bluest to the reddest state (using the voting trends and history of each individual state -- including votes in recent presidential elections, breakdown of congressional delegations, the parties of the last three governors, and control of state legislatures).

They found that the bluest state is Washington, and the reddest state is Alabama. Using their findings, I list below the 15 bluest and 15 reddest states in the United States.

15 BLUEST STATES
1. Washington
2. Minnesota
3. Oregon
4. California
5. Rhode Island
6. New York
7. Massachusetts
8. Maryland
9. Michigan
10. Wisconsin
11. Maine
12. Illinois
13. Hawaii
14.Connecticut
15. Vermont

15 REDDEST STATES
1. Alabama
2. Alaska
3. Idaho
4. Kansas
5. Mississippi
6. Nebraska
7. Oklahoma
8. Utah
9. Wyoming
10. South Carolina
11. Texas
12. North Dakota
13. South Dakota
14. Arizona
15. Georgia