Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

House Republicans seek investigation into impact of school closures on students with disabilities – ABC News

Republicans criticized the administration for not doing more to reopen schools.

March 8, 2021, 5:51 PM

5 min read

House Republicans on Monday called on Democrats to launch a bipartisan investigation into the impact of school closures on children with disabilities, warning that they are in particular danger of falling behind with remote learning.

"We are hearing from parents across the U.S. whose children with disabilities are bearing the greatest burden as schools remain closed," Reps. Steve Scalise, R-La., James Comer, R-Ky., Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., wrote in a letter to the Democratic chairs of four House panels first obtained by ABC News.

"Many special needs children benefit from consistent and attentive, in-person instruction. Many special needs children also receive afternoon in-school therapy sessions. The lack of access to these services raises serious concerns about the impact on their mental health," the Republicans wrote.

Students file into their classroom at Sun Yat Sen M.S. 131, Feb. 25, 2021, in New York.

With many schools closed for a year now due to the pandemic, the GOP letter was clearly a jab at Democrats and President Joe Biden on whats become a partisan issue in the pandemic.

Previously, the Trump administration insisted that schools should reopen but offered no firm benchmarks or standards on when to open and how to do so safely and never collected data on best practices. Instead, the Republican administration first released guidance last July urging schools to reopen but insisted that how they do so should be a local matter.

Under Biden, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention formulated the nations federal standard for reopening classrooms. But those guidelines have been criticized by many parents and some health experts as too strict and likely to leave too many students stuck with online learning indefinitely.

The request for an inquiry comes as Republican governors, pointing to declining coronavirus cases, are loosening restrictions and mandating in-person schooling for students.

Last week, Arizona GOP Gov. Doug Ducey issued an executive order requiring schools to offer in-person instruction led by teachers by March 15, after spring break in the state.

Biden announced a new vaccine initiative to prioritize teachers and school workers for appointments at thousands of pharmacies across the country, in an effort to get every educator their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of March and facilitate more in-person teaching.

In response to the GOP letter, a spokesperson for Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, told ABC News Democrats are "equally concerned about the impact the pandemic has had on students with disabilities."

"That is why the Chairman supports the American Rescue Plan, which will invest nearly $130 billion in safely reopening schools, including $3 billion in new funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. If Republicans want to support students with disabilities, they should vote in favor of the American Rescue Plan," the aide said in a statement.

Link:
House Republicans seek investigation into impact of school closures on students with disabilities - ABC News

Republicans push bill to incentivize competition for broadband in WV – WDVM 25

CHARLESTON, WV (WOWK) Every year the West Virginia legislature talks about improving broadband access in the state.

This year, theres a bill moving quickly through the legislature that aims to do just that.

Back in the fall of 2020, a West Virginia broadband availability map was published detailing just how spotty broadband availability is in the Mountain State.

The map featured speed tests and used information directly from West Virginians after the FCCs map was deemed inaccurate.

There are some large areas that dont have it that are very, very rural but then also youll find there are 15 homes on a ridge-top somewhere who dont have it but then a mile or so in any direction theres at least one provider, said Del. Daniel Linville (R-Cabell).

As the pandemic played out, the lack of broadband highlighted the challenges with telehealth, remote learning by school kids, and mom and dad trying to work from home.

Linville is the lead sponsor of HB 2002 and says his bill aims to not only expand broadband to those who dont have it, but also incentivize competition.

More providers sharing the same trench for their fiber lines reduces the cost per mile to get broadband to more areas.

We know that there are West Virginia companies that are actively investing in the state of West Virginia to be a broadband internet provider, he said.

Linville says broadband access is one of the few issues that has bipartisan support in the state.

Federal support for broadband is also coming under the newest COVID-19 relief package with Sen. Joe Manchin (D West Virginia), who voted for the package, writing in a statement, This pandemic also impacted our students, communities, families and small businesses. West Virginia alone will receive $140 million for broadband expansion.

The bill now heads to the Senate for a vote.

The rest is here:
Republicans push bill to incentivize competition for broadband in WV - WDVM 25

Opinion | There Is a Generational Divide Among Republicans – The New York Times

As Ive talked this over with friends and colleagues, Ive found that there is quite a bit of support for the idea of a child allowance. At a gut level, people understand that its gotten objectively harder for the average person to afford children without working so much to make ends meet that they dont have the time or energy to spend the time with their kids that they need. The general sentiment is that the family is a haven in a heartless world and we should support anything that makes it easier for families to thrive.

Ive observed two things in these discussions that also map directly onto the broader fault lines in right-of-center politics. The younger people Ive spoken to are more likely to support a child allowance than the older. The dividing line seems to be around age 50, with support increasing among younger people, while opposition increases in frequency and vehemence with age. The other is that people who work in politics are more likely to oppose this idea, probably because they are the ones most invested in an ideological outlook and with the most institutional incentives to toe the line.

A cynic might reply that of course people in their 20s, 30s and 40s would be more likely to support this plan; after all, theyre the ones most likely to have kids and receive the cash. There is something to that, but I dont think this is a case of raw self-interest driving people to get their hands on some free money. Whats really going on is that these people are in a very different place financially than Generation X and especially baby boomers when they were raising young children. Millennials, many of whom are now in their 30s, own a share of national wealth that is roughly one-quarter what the boomers owned at the same age and are well below where Gen X was, too.

Theyre the ones feeling the brunt of the brutal slowdown in real wage growth that started in the 1970s, of the steep rise in the cost of education, of the financialization and globalization of the economy that have all made it harder to start a family and raise children. These private conversations have been instructive. One conservative friend in her late 20s, upon hearing about the Biden plan, told me, What the heck, I guess Im a Democrat now. She was joking about switching parties, but not about her support for the child allowance. Other young Republicans might go the additional step, which would spell doom for Republicans who are already struggling with younger people. My friend is a frequent critic of Mitt Romney, but she likes his plan a lot.

Elected Republicans who reflexively oppose a child allowance may need to catch up with their voters and with economic reality on this. Some might be getting the message. Another friend, who spent years working closely with Jack Kemp and might have been expected to oppose the idea for any number of reasons, told me he strongly supports a child allowance. He essentially waved off the sorts of concerns raised by Mr. Rubio and Mr. Lee as being trifles compared with the importance of supporting family formation and the stability that comes with it.

The long-term trend of demotherization, as social scientists gracelessly put it, is not good for children or the many women who report that they would prefer to be at home with their children, especially when they are young. Whats worse, both the earned-income tax credit and temporary assistance for needy families reinforce the problem, because they are means tested and linked to the mother working outside of the home. Scott Winship of the American Enterprise Institute explicitly worries that a child allowance would create the possibility that single mothers could afford not to work.

Strangely the concern that mothers whether single or married could afford not to work seems to be a fetish for many Republicans who are otherwise pro-family, at least in their statements. Whats incongruous about the Lee and Rubio statement is that when they say that being pro-family is being pro-work, they are saying, in effect, that only wage-work outside the home counts as real work. Thats false and inhumane. Raising children is in fact the most essential work there is. Kids need their parents. Its hard and time-consuming, but ultimately the most satisfying thing that most people do. Conservatives should believe in parents raising their own children rather than outsourcing it.

Read the rest here:
Opinion | There Is a Generational Divide Among Republicans - The New York Times

Group of Utah Republicans issue resolution to censure Romney – KJZZ

(KUTV)

The Utah Platform Republicans PAC issued a resolution Monday censuring Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) for his vote to convict former President Donald Trump in his two Senate impeachment trials.

In 2020, Romney was the only GOP senator to vote in favor of conviction. The follow year, Romney again voted for conviction along with seven other Republicans.

The censure resolution states that Utah GOP Platform, a political action committee, believes Romney's votes were "unjust and unethical." Read the resolution in its entirety below.

2News has reached out to Romney for comment.

In February, 2News reported rumblings among Utah Republicans about censuring Romney over his impeachment vote.

Hundreds of people have signed the motion, circulating social media, calling for a censure against Romney.

The Utah Republican Party defended Romney in February, along with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) after talk of censuring and a motion, signed by hundreds of people, accused Romney of being a deep state agent.

Their statement read: "..The difference between our Utah Republicans showcase a diversity of thought, in contrast to the danger of a party fixated on 'unanimity of thought. There is power in our differences as a political party, and we look forward to each senator explaining their votes to the people of Utah. Disagreement is natural and healthy in a party that is based on principlesnot on persona. In fact, those principles are the reason behind unprecedented American prosperity during the last four years."

A censure does not remove a senator from office, but is a formal statement of disapproval, according to the U.S. Senate's website.

Whereas, at the first impeachment trial, on February 5, 2020, without evidence of a federal crime or misdemeanor and ignoring the unconstitutional House impeachment process, Utahs junior U.S. Senator Mitt Romney was the lone Republican voting with the Senate Democrats to convict Pres. Trump, becoming the first Senator in 231 years of U.S. presidential history to vote against a President of his own party in an impeachment trial; and

Whereas, on January 13, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an article of impeachment claiming that President Trump had incited an insurrection against the U.S. government, without any evidence to prove he incited violence, given that President Trump had, on January 6th, asked his supporters to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard and that the FBI had concluded that the occupation of the Capitol building by the rioters had been pre-planned in advance of the Presidents speech; and

Whereas, on January 26, 2021, after President Trump had concluded his term and left office, Sen. Romney voted together with all of the Senate Democrats to proceed with an unconstitutional Senate show trial (at which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court refused to preside) on the House's article of impeachment; and

Whereas, on February 13, 2021, Sen. Romney voted together with all of the Senate Democrats to convict Donald Trump on the House's impeachment charge; and

Whereas, Republicans in the other six States from which Republican Senators voted to convict President Trump have held their Senators accountable for their wrongful votes; and

Whereas, the Utah Republican Party Platform requires us to hold elected leaders accountable to ethical standards, and voting to convict a former President without sufficient evidence to prove any of the elements of the charge of incitement of insurrection is both unjust and unethical;

Therefore, be it resolved that: We, the Board of Directors of the Platform Republican PAC, hereby declare our united censure of Sen. Mitt Romney.

Read the original post:
Group of Utah Republicans issue resolution to censure Romney - KJZZ

Why Did Republicans Outperform The Polls Again? Two Theories. – FiveThirtyEight

Pollsters are perplexed. Many believed that the polling errors we saw in 2016 had been adequately addressed in time for the 2020 presidential election. But once again, the polls underestimated support for Donald Trump (and support for Republicans across the board). Now, more than three months out from the election, we still dont have a great sense as to why.

A number of theories may offer some clues, though. For instance, one popular explanation is that pollsters likely voter models were off. Survey screening for likely voters may have failed to adequately gauge voter enthusiasm. Or attempts to contact inconsistent or infrequent voters who tend to be harder to reach in surveys may have failed in reaching those more favorable to Trump. Also, due to the pandemic, Democrats chose to limit typical methods to increase voter turnout, like door-to-door canvassing, which may have affected actual turnout. Then again, maybe the polling error was due to sampling problems. If Democrats were more likely than Republicans to stay at home during the pandemic, they would more likely be available to take surveys. Of course, its not necessarily an either-or situation. Both of these theories could be true (not to mention a whole host of other explanations), but its also possible that something bigger is at play here since the polls misfired in similar ways in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections: Pollsters may be systematically missing certain types of Republican support.

This is a relatively new phenomenon, but pollsters have increasingly found evidence of partisan nonresponse that is, particular types of Republicans are just less likely to take surveys, so these voters opinions are not reflected in survey data. This was especially relevant in understanding Trumps support, too, as many of these voters broke for him and other Republicans in 2020.

But why are some Republican voters more reluctant to take surveys? As the director of polling at the Cato Institute, I, as well as other pollsters, am studying this and currently have two working theories for why this is happening. First, Republicans are becoming more distrustful of institutions and society, and that may be extending to how they feel about pollsters. Second, suburban Republican college graduates are more likely to fear professional sanction for their views and are therefore self-censoring more, including in surveys. Now, of course, understanding who isnt responding to a survey is inherently difficult because well, they arent taking the survey, and at this point, we dont know whether these two things are happening independently or are part of the same phenomenon. However, it indicates to me that some of the polling error we saw in 2020 is part of a long-standing issue that isnt unique just to Trump.

Long before Trump took office, Republicans were already losing trust in our society and its institutions. But there are now signs that lack of trust could be driving the nonresponse and distrust we see among Republicans in polls. In his examination of what drove survey nonresponse in the 2016 election, Alexander Agadjanian, now a Ph.D. student at the University of California, Berkeley, found that in the past 40 or so years, Republicans trust has declined considerably. Initially, they were much more likely than Democrats to say that people could be trusted, but now the gap between the two parties has narrowed. If we look at more recent data, from 2018, we see that trust among Republicans is now at the same level as trust among Democrats: In 1972, 56 percent of Republicans said other people could be trusted, as did 41 percent of Democrats. In 2018, those figures declined to 35 percent among both groups a 21-percentage-point decline among Republicans and a 6-point decline among Democrats.

Declining trust in institutions also breaks down along very partisan lines with more Republicans than Democrats saying they lack faith in institutions. Take the share of Republicans who believe the national news media has a positive effect on the country. That figure plummeted from an already-low 24 percent in 2010 to just 10 percent in 2017, according to the Pew Research Center. For academia, the decline in confidence among Republicans has been even more dramatic. In 2010, Pew found 58 percent of Republicans thought colleges and universities had a positive effect on the country, but that share dropped to 36 percent by 2017. In contrast, Democrats confidence in both the media and higher education has gone up slightly since 2010, by 5 points and 7 points, respectively.

So, why are Republicans losing confidence in institutions?

According to Gallup, the most common reason Republicans gave for their low confidence in universities was that they believed they were too political and biased. Similarly, a 2017 Cato Institute/YouGov survey I worked on found that Republicans tended to believe many major news outlets had a liberal bias while an outlet like Fox News had a conservative one.

To be clear, these trends predate Trump, but he likely also accelerated them. Think of all the times he called the news media an enemy of the American people and claimed that the polls were fake that is, unless the results were favorable to him.

And this perception that knowledge gatekeepers like the media and academia are politicized may have given some Republicans the impression that other institutions like polling are politicized too. Or at least this is a working theory I have. Take the fact that media organizations and colleges or universities are often frequent sponsors of polls (e.g., CNN, The New York Times, Monmouth University). In fact, in my analysis of the polls included in the Real Clear Politics polling average one month before the 2020 election, I found that 79 percent of the polls were sponsored by either a media outlet or a college or university. Consider that the sponsors of these polls often explicitly identify themselves when they contact respondents and ask them to participate in a survey. If most Republicans believe journalists and academics are politicized, it stands to reason they might assume the polls they sponsor are politicized, too.

Taken together, its plausible at the very least that as Republican confidence in societal institutions plummets, so does their trust in polls and pollsters more generally. And, as a result, some Republicans in particular, Trump voters who have lower levels of social trust are less likely to take surveys.

But Trumps anti-establishment rhetoric and Republicans declining trust in societal institutions is probably not the whole story either. Polls of the 2018 midterm elections held in the middle of Trumps presidency performed reasonably well. This indicates that something else may also have been at work.

One possible explanation? Republicans may be more likely to opt out of election polls because they increasingly fear retribution for their views. A Cato Institute/YouGov survey I helped conduct in July found, for instance, that 62 percent of Americans have political views they are afraid to share given the current political climate. Republicans were overwhelmingly likely to say they self-censored their political opinions (77 percent) compared with Democrats (52 percent).

Not only were many Republicans afraid to express their political opinions, but those with more education were also more likely than Democrats to say they feared getting fired or missing out on job opportunities if their opinions became known. Interestingly, Republicans with a high school education or less (27 percent) were about as likely as their Democratic counterparts (23 percent) to fear their political views could harm them at work. But Republicans with college degrees (40 percent) and post-graduate degrees (60 percent) were far more concerned than Democrats with college degrees (24 percent) and post-graduate degrees (25 percent) in this regard.

Several other studies have also found that more educated, affluent, white suburban Republicans were hesitant to share their political views. Public Opinion Strategies, for instance, found that Trump voters were more likely to keep their vote a secret from their friends (19 percent of Trump voters versus 8 percent of Biden voters) and that this demographic was more likely to be college-educated white women. Wes Anderson of OnMessage, a Republican consulting firm, also told me that in their research they found that higher-income, college-educated white voters were more likely to say they knew someone who was uncomfortable telling people they were voting for Trump, and whats more, they were more likely to say that description could apply to themselves.

There is also some evidence that these voters might be less likely to reveal their voting preferences in a live telephone interview, although we want to be careful about putting too much stock into shy Trump voters. That said, the pollster Morning Consult did find in 2015 and 2016 that more affluent and educated voters were slightly less likely to indicate that they would vote for Trump in a telephone interview, which carries social desirability pressure, than in an online survey. In 2020 they found limited evidence for an education effect but slightly higher Trump support among higher-income households online. A team of academics also found in an online survey of registered voters that Republicans were about twice as likely (12 percent) as Democrats (5 percent) to say they would probably or definitely not share their true voting intentions for president with a pollster in a telephone poll.

But why are these Republicans resistant to telling pollsters their true preferences? Theyre likely afraid their opinions might get out, even though polls are conducted confidentially. In the aforementioned study, the voters who admitted being unlikely to tell pollsters who they were voting for were asked why that was the case. As one respondent put it, I dont believe the information would be confidential and I think its dangerous to express an opinion outside of the current liberal viewpoint.

Another said, I would not give my real opinion for fear of reprisal if someone found out. These quotes are not just cherry-picked either. The researchers categorized all the open-ended responses and identified six primary reasons why respondents wanted to keep their opinions private, and four of those six reasons involved a fear that ones political opinion could be traced back to them and prove harmful. Republicans considerably outnumbered Democrats in these fears.

Its possible, of course, that this second theory of mine isnt telling the whole story either. It may be that two separate phenomena are occurring simultaneously. Perhaps a sliver of college-educated affluent suburban Republican voters are reluctant to express their views with pollsters, as was detected by Public Opinion Strategies, OnMessage and Morning Consult. And its possible that this group is entirely different from another set of low-trust Republican voters who refuse to take surveys. Or maybe these two theories overlap more than we realize.

Nevertheless, this second theory does help explain, in part, why Republicans did better than expected in more affluent suburban House districts. Most Republican incumbents in suburban districts won, and instead of losing seats nationally, as was forecasted based on pre-election polls, Republicans actually picked up a net gain of 12 House seats (and flipped 15) primarily in suburban areas.

Its easy to think something may be unique to Trumps being on the ballot considering we saw such a large miss in the 2016 and 2020 polls (the 2018 midterm polls, on the other hand, performed well), but although Trump did play a role in creating a contentious environment, we should avoid jumping to the conclusion that polling will return to normal now that hes out of office.

Thats because our country is in the middle of an uncivil war, full of partisan rancor and loathing. This predates Trump, of course, but many believe he brought a persons political identity to the forefront in both 2016 (immigration) and 2020 (immigration, but he also painted Democrats as politically extreme) to the extent that people are now changing their views on race and gender to match their political party. This, in turn, has meant political discourse in the U.S. is harder. For instance, a Yahoo News/YouGov survey conducted in late May 2020 found that a majority of Americans (52 percent) thought Trump was a racist. With those stakes, agreeing to disagree is simply hard for many to do. And those who think that Trump administration policies did more good than harm, on balance, may opt to not participate in polls in order to keep those views private given the stakes.

But this isnt unique to Trump. Other elections where political identity was pivotal to the outcome have also produced polling misses. Take the Brexit vote, the 2016 referendum in the United Kingdom to either leave or stay in the European Union. This vote, too, became strongly associated with issues of identity and immigration and had a surprising electoral outcome because polls systematically underestimated the conservative vote for Leave, which in the end won by nearly 4 points (52 percent Leave versus 48 percent Remain).

Notably, Leave support had actually dropped in the polls after a far-right extremist assassinated Labour lawmaker Jo Cox, a staunch Remainer, because of her views on immigration and globalization. But SurveyMonkeys Chief Research Officer Jon Cohen told NBC News that he thought the drop occurred because many Leave voters didnt want to be associated with Coxs murder; they may have just opted out of surveys even though they were still voting in favor of Leave because they were concerned about immigration. And this is a trend I think is likely to continue as long as sensitive, politically divisive issues like immigration, race, identity and citizenship frame the way voters think about what their vote means.

Provided this interpretation of the data is accurate, pollsters will have to contend with societal forces much larger than the industry itself. The perception that societal institutions are politicized, the belief that a growing illiberal zeitgeist will punish dissenting viewpoints, the inherently sensitive and salient issues of immigration and identity these all combine to undercut the social trust needed for accurate polling. Without Trump on the ballot, the issues at stake could very well change. But it seems unlikely that the highly contentious issues over the past four years will fade into the background simply because Trump is no longer in the White House. Indeed, these issues will likely remain in the forefront in future election cycles, especially if he runs for office again. And unless pollsters can regain respondents trust, todays reluctant Republican survey-takers may continue to conceal their political positions, only to reveal them at the ballot box.

Originally posted here:
Why Did Republicans Outperform The Polls Again? Two Theories. - FiveThirtyEight