Mediaboss Marketing

I love owning a small business, but its not without its challenges. Finding affordable health care is one of those challenges.

Todd Mikkelson

My wife and I had a new baby at the same time we were starting our own business, so health care coverage was essential. If we hadnt had access to affordable coverage through Minnesota Care, one of us would have had to maintain other full-time employment with health-care benefits and our business would have never gotten off the ground.

Now President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are pushing through a plan that would take health care away from 23 million people including many of the 4 million newly insured small business owners, employees, and self-employed entrepreneurs like my wife and me. Instead of improving access and lowering costs, the GOP plan puts health care out of reach for many working families across Minnesota, and the House version jeopardizes protections for people with pre-existing conditions. The plan (details of the Senate versionhave just been released) also slashes Medicaid by $834 billion, threatening the health care of 74 million Americans who rely on Medicaid every day and creating huge deficits in state budgets.

Through these drastic cuts to Medicaid and to the tax credits that make buying coverage affordable, the repeal plan would cause premiums to skyrocket and possibly trigger the collapse of the private market. The plan would give $664 billion in tax cuts to the very wealthy and big corporations while forcing Minnesota small business owners back to a time when many of us couldnt afford coverage at all.

Whats bad for consumers and local businesses is bad for the economy. Any economist will tell you that when people have more money in their pockets, they can spend more at local businesses.

When small businesses struggle to keep their doors open, there are fewer jobs for Minnesotans. And when a single illness or medical emergency can bankrupt a family, that family wont be shopping at our small businesses or contributing to a robust economy.

The Republican repeal plan is only part of the problem. At the same time, Trump and the Republicans in Congress are actively sabotaging the ACA marketplaces, where about 200,000 Minnesotans are getting their coverage. One of the GOPs tactics is threatening to hold back payments that lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Without these payments, fewer people will be able to afford coverage. With fewer customers, insurance companies might abandon many of the markets, especially in rural areas, or hike premiums.

Does the ACA need some improvements? Of course. But we shouldnt scrap whats working for a new plan that increases costs, allows insurance companies to charge more for people with pre-existing conditions, and gives tax breaks to the wealthy and insurance and drug companies. The Republican House plan even includes an age tax that lets insurers charge older consumers five times more than younger ones!

Our leaders should be building on what works not sabotaging progress for Minnesotans to score political points. House Republicans like Erik Paulsen have the opportunity to take a stand for Minnesotans and small businesses by rejecting the health care plan that President Trump and congressional Republicans have proposed.

A thriving health care market means I have a real choice. I can afford quality insurance to keep my family healthy and my business thriving. And like millions of newly insured Americans, Im not interested in going backward.

Todd Mikkelson is the owner of SprayRack.com in Orono. He visited his congressman, Rep. Eric Paulsens office in December to urge him to not vote for repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

If you're interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below or consider writinga letteror a longer-formCommunity Voicescommentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)

See original here:
Republican health plan is a disaster for Minnesota's small businesses - MinnPost

Throughout the modernhistory of Congress, lawmakers have inexorablyexpanded progressive social policies, and whileconservatives have successfully forestalledexpansions to the social safety net, they've had very little success in reversingthem.

Right now, however, Republicanshave a chance to buck that trend, as they prepare legislation aimed at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The Senate bill released on Thursday, coupled with the House bill passed earlier this year, would beexactly the kind of cuts to the welfare state that conservativeshave consistently failed to achieve.

The repeal measure, which follows weeks of unusual secrecy in its drafting, would bring down taxes, eliminatehundreds of billions of dollarsin outlays on the social safety net and curtail the federal government's involvement in a crucial sector of the economy.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) unveiled the legislation that would reshape a big piece of the U.S. health-care system on Thursday, June 22. Here's what we know about the bill. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)

The American right has had few chancesto enact such far-reaching legislation. For decades, Democrats controlled the House, and Republican presidents have often pursuedmoderate or progressive domestic agendas.Public programs established by Democrats have proven popular among beneficiaries,and it has been difficult for Republicans to dismantle them.

Conservative principles have often won out in foreign policy, in the courts and at the level of the states, but the trend in federal lawmaking has long been to the left.The Republican health-care bill would be an exception. The law would go beyond repealing parts of Obamacare to drastically restructure Medicaid, a 52-year-old program.

The more common pattern in the U.S. is that progressive social policies have been prevented, rather than rolled back, said Julia Lynch, a political scientist atthe University of Pennsylvania.

Until now, the growth of the welfare state has occasionally been slowed, but never reversed in any major way, noted H.W. Brands, a historian at the University of Texas at Austin, in an email.

Here's a timeline of some of the rare big wins for congressional conservatives.

After the Second World War, Congress dealt a blow to organized labor, removing one of the main reasons for workers to join unions in many states. Employers gained the ability to hire workers who were not members of their union but who were still paid according to the union contract, as long as their state passed what is known as a right-to-work law.

Proponents have argued that right-to-work legislation has helped workers get jobs even if they do not want to be members of a union. At the same time, these laws have allowed workers to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining without paying union dues, diluting the political clout of organized labor.

Activists and organizers often cite the Taft-Hartley Act, as the bill Congress passed in 1947 is known, as one of the reasons union membership has declined since the Second World War. There have been economic burdens on unions as well, however. Competition from industrial robots and overseas labor has put limits on their bargaining power.

The Republican health-care bill has followed a parallel trajectory to the Taft-Hartley law. Much as the GOP bill is a response to Democrats' victory on the issue a few years ago with Obamacare, the Taft-Hartley bill weakened New Deal labor legislation enacted in 1935. The law did so by devolving some authority over collective bargaining to the states, just as Republicans hope to give states the freedom to waive certain requirements in Obamacare.

There is one notable difference, though. Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act with broad bipartisan support, as conservative Democrats joined Republicans to override a veto from President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat. Republicans appear unlikely to win any Democratic votes for their health-care bill.

Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Actamida long series of defeatsforAmerican conservatism.

Beginning in 1933, Democrats had taken control of the House, and they remainedin power for decades, with only a few exceptions. Meanwhile, Republican presidents pursued centrist agendas.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower profoundly expanded the federal government's involvement in the economy with the Interstate Highway System. Richard Nixon supported a health-care overhaul that would have been substantially more progressive than Obamacare.

That changed with President Ronald Reagan, who won election in 1980 in part on a promise to bring down taxes. In his first year in office, he signed a major tax cut into law.

He brought down the marginal rate paid by the wealthiest taxpayers on their income from 70 percent to 50 percent. The law weakened the estate tax and offered businesses more favorable treatment on their investments.

Reagan's 1981 bill passed Congress with bipartisan support. The House, controlled by Democrats, voted 323 to 107 in favor of the law.

Had that law stood, it would have been the most significant reduction in taxes in modern times, reducing federal revenue by 2.9 percent of gross domestic product. Yet the law forced the federal government to borrow more to make up for the forgone revenue. During the rest of his administration, Reagan was repeatedly forced to increase taxes to deal with mounting deficits. Ultimately, he replaced about half of the original cut with tax hikes.

Arguably, the best precedent for what Republicans hope to achieve in undoing Obamacare is the welfare overhaul that President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, which eliminated a major federal entitlement and over time reduced the financial support available to poor American families.

The overhaul, a joint effort by the Clinton administration and Republicans in Congress,generally required Americans to work, volunteer, participate in vocational training or meet other requirements to receive cash assistance from the government. Like the Taft-Hartley Act, Clinton's bill left much of the actual policymaking to states, which gained new authority to impose restrictions on welfare.

And like the Republican health-care bill released Thursday, Clinton's overhaul reduced federal spending over many years through inflation. The Republican bill would limit spending on Medicaid to an index of inflation, but spending on Medicaid is increasing more rapidly than inflation as beneficiaries get older and require more expensive treatment. The result would be a cut to the program likely approaching $1 trillion, although official estimates are not yet available.

Clinton ran on a promise to overhaul the welfare system, but the retooling was in part the result of agitation from conservative lawmakerssuch as Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), then the speaker of the House. Republicans had won the Housetwo years earlier, ending generations of Democratic control, and Clinton was in the middle of a difficult campaign for his reelection at a time when public opinion had turned against the welfare system.

He vetoed two bills sent to him by Republicans, who were now in control of Congress, before signing the bill over the objections of liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill and in his own administration.Two of his top advisers on poverty policy resigned in the wake of the bill.

President George W. Bush sought to mimic Reagan's achievement by cutting taxes as well, with a series of three tax-relief bills totaling about 1.3 percent of GDP between 2001 and 2003.

The rest of Bush'sadministration might have been a disappointment to conservatives, however. Heincreased federalborrowing by expanding benefits under Medicare, and his plan for free-market overhauls to Social Securitydid not win support in Congress.

A handful of Democratic lawmakers voted in favor of the tax cuts, but the parties had long been drifting apart ideologically, and there were fewer of the kind of conservative Democrat that had supported limited-government legislation in the past.

Republicans have shifted to the right as well, and they are now are pursuing a health-care policy that will likely draw opposition from nearly all Democrats, but some moderate GOP lawmakers, too.

That fact demonstrates the enduing difficulty for conservative activists of unwinding social programs that help large numbers of people get by.

If it is enacted, it willcertainly be historic, said Norm Ornstein, a political scientist at the right-leaningAmerican Enterprise Institute.Conservatives, he said, find themselves in the unfamiliar position of being able to pass and get through a dramatic change in an important area of policy that really does take a meat-ax to government in terms of size and role.

See more here:
Republicans' Obamacare repeal would be one of the biggest cuts to the social safety net in history - Washington Post

That's because they think she helps them win elections. And they've been winning a lot.

"I certainly hope the Democrats do not force Nancy P out. That would be very bad for the Republican Party - and please let Cryin' (Senate Minority Leader) Chuck (Schumer) stay!" Trump tweeted Thursday morning as some Democrats call for their House minority leader's ouster after Tuesday's special election loss in Georgia.

The Georgia contest was the most expensive House race in history, and the GOP dusted off the same playbook it has used effectively since the Republican wave of 2010: Hammering Democratic candidates with a relentlessly anti-Pelosi message that drives out the conservative base.

Democrat Jon Ossoff never found an answer for the attacks -- and Republican Karen Handel won Tuesday night by 4 percentage points.

Why the relentless focus on the Democratic congresswoman from San Francisco?

It was at the heart of their strategy to turn out reliably Republican voters who might be queasy with Trump's first five months in office, but did not want to see Pelosi and national Democrats celebrate a marquee victory in their own backyard.

Pelosi "consistently polls very unfavorably," said John Rogers, the executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee -- the House GOP's campaign arm.

"I think in this instance it had a motivating effect for our voters on the turnout front," Rogers said Wednesday.

That the Pelosi-bashing continued to hurt Democrats -- already struggling to get their bearings after Trump's win in November -- left some fuming after a morning meeting Wednesday.

Having Pelosi as the face of the party "makes it a heck of a lot harder" to win House seats, said Rep. Tim Ryan, the Ohio Democrat who challenged Pelosi for the House minority leader post after the 2016 election.

"One of the disappointing things from the last couple of days is that that approach still has a little bit of punch to it. It still moves voters," Ryan said.

Pelosi herself erupted about the GOP ads last week, after Republicans accused Democrats of overly harsh rhetoric in the wake of the shooting at the Republican congressional baseball practice in Virginia.

"As we sit here, they're running caricatures of me in Georgia," Pelosi said.

She complained of the "vitriolic things that they say that resulted in calls to my home constantly, threats in front of my grandchildren -- really, predicated on their comments and their paid ads."

Pelosi said she didn't want to hear Republicans "all of a sudden be sanctimonious" as if they had "never seen such a thing before."

On Thursday, Pelosi fielded several questions at her weekly briefing about calls by some in her party for her to step down after the recent losses. Pelosi acknowledged the attacks but added, "I think I'm worth the trouble."

The focus on Pelosi comes in part because she's the only figure in Democratic politics who is universally known and detested on the right.

In 2010, it was Pelosi and then-President Barack Obama. Years later, it was Pelosi, Obama and then-top Senate Democrat Harry Reid. Now, with Obama and Reid gone, Republicans have occasionally tried latching Democratic senators to Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren, with mixed results. But the Pelosi attacks on the House side have been consistent for years.

Ossoff regularly attempted to deflect questions about whether he would back Pelosi in the House, saying he hadn't given it any thought.

That non-answer didn't work -- so some Democrats on Wednesday were going further in distancing themselves from the former speaker.

Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat, told CNN his party needed new leadership.

"Whether she's a leader or not is up to the caucus to decide," Moulton said. "But this is something we certainly have to discuss, because it's clear that I think across the board in the Democratic Party, we need new leadership."

Republicans' ability to effectively use Pelosi as their bogeyman in Georgia was especially stark when contrasted with the Democrats' tactics there.

Trump's collapse in November -- he beat Hillary Clinton by just 1.5 percentage points in a district that Mitt Romney had carried by 24 points four years earlier -- was the sole reason national Democrats saw the race as potentially competitive.

And progressive activists' willingness to pour millions of dollars' worth of small-dollar online contributions into Ossoff's campaign -- donations fueled almost entirely by a desire to deal Trump a political setback -- was what convinced Democrats to take the race seriously.

Yet neither Ossoff's campaign nor the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee attempted to tie Republican winner Karen Handel to Trump in a television ad even once.

Democrats were hesitant to attack the President in such a historically heavily Republican district. But their reluctance left Ossoff running on a milquetoast message, allowing Republicans to drive the narrative that he would be a Pelosi lackey on Capitol Hill.

"One important lesson is that when they go low, going high doesn't f**king work," Tanden said.

CNN's Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

Read the original post:
Trump and Republicans don't want Nancy Pelosi to go - CNN

CHAMBLEE, Ga. Republicans in the conservative Atlanta suburbs and across the country were elated Wednesday after their party beat back Democrats in a competitive special election, avoiding a loss that could have damaged President Trumps hopes of enacting his agenda.

But the celebration of Republican Karen Handels victory in Georgias Sixth congressional district may be brief.

Trumps priorities remain largely stalled on Capitol Hill and Tuesdays result, due to a unique set of circumstances, provides only a faint road map to either party as they strategize for next years midterm elections. By some measures, the Georgia race only deepened the uncertainty around the choices facing both Republicans and the Democrats going forward.

Im encouraged, said Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), a moderate who faces a tough reelection race against a marquee Democratic recruit. Of course, its a single election in a single district, so you cant read too much into it, in either direction.

Handel beat Ossoff by roughly four percentage points, or almost 11,000 votes, in what became the most expensive House race in history. The margin was surprisingly tight, given the fact the district has only elected Republicans to the House since 1978.

Im proud of how close we came, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee executive director Dan Sena said on a post-election call with consultants, according to a listener who requested anonymity in order to discuss what was said. Remember, folks: there are 71 districts that perform better than Georgia Six.

What cannot be replicated next year are the sheer amounts of resources and organization that poured into a single contest from all sides, bringing the total cost of the race to more than $50 million.

Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff, a 30-year-old former congressional aide, also carried personal liabilities as a candidate, including a thin resume and the fact that he does not live in the district he sought to represent.

Democrats could still find themselves with an edge in the midterms, depending in large measure on how Trump historically unpopular for a president so early in his tenure performs in the next year-and-a-half.

But in their disappointment at the outcome of a race into which they had placed so much of the partys resources and its hopes, Democrats must confront a number of questions.

Ideological fractures remain in their party, with recriminations still flying over Hillary Clintons unexpected loss in last years presidential election. One choice facing the party is whether to embrace the hard line advocated by its ardent liberal base, or to take a more conciliatory and moderate stance as Ossoff did.

Another question is whether Democrats have the right leadership for the battle ahead. Handel and outside groups working on her behalf resurrected a well-worn Republican strategy of tying opponents to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a symbol on the right of out-of-touch liberal values.

With yet another example of Republicans successfully using Pelosi as a political foil, some Democrats wondered Wednesday if it is approaching time for the 77-year-old leader and her deputies to step aside. The question tends to divide members of the House Democratic Caucus into two groups: the majority that hail from liberal districts and are loyal to Pelosi, and the minority in moderate or GOP-leaning areas that see her as a liability.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), 38, one of the most outspoken critics of the caucuss leadership, said Wednesday the party needs a new generation of leadership one focused on the future.

Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), 52, expressed similar views on Twitter, and in an interview with CNN, where she said: Its time for Nancy Pelosi to go, and the entire leadership team.

For Republicans, the biggest quandary is how closely to tie their fortunes to an unpopular president and his freewheeling populism,

Observers point to Virginias gubernatorial primary this month, where establishment favorite Edward J. Gillespie triumphed over a Trump-aligned candidate, though narrowly, as evidence the Trump model does not guarantee victory.

In another special election Tuesday night, a deep-red South Carolina House district elected Ralph Norman, a conservative businessman who has complimented Trump but did not try to emulate his style on the campaign trail. And Handel, herself an establishment Republican, tread cautiously in associating herself with Trump.

In her victory speech on Tuesday night, Handel thanked the president of the United States along with Vice President Mike Pence for their support. She did not mention Trump by name.

Some of Trumps allies had a strong message for Republicans on Wednesday: Resist the notion youre in danger of losing power, redouble efforts to advance the partys agenda and do more, not less, to embrace the president.

If theyve gotten advice to not mention him, thats bad advice, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) said in an interview.

The president is not an ideologue. Hes a pragmatist. Hes trying to get people shoulder to shoulder and execute on the plan, Perdue said. Too many people in the Washington establishment are looking through a traditional lens.

Trump cheered Tuesday nights victories on Twitter. Well, the Special Elections are over and those that want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN are 5 and O! he wrote. All the Fake News, all the money spent = 0.

The GOP victory in Georgia came at a critical moment. Senate Republicans are preparing to unveil their sweeping rewrite of U.S. health-care laws, even as rank-and-file members complain about the secrecy of the process and express concerns about aspects of the plan. Some of those members are already worrying privately about the political fallout they might face when voters lose coverage or face higher premiums under the new system.

Nodding to congressional Republicans effort to revise the Affordable Care Act, she suggested it was time to move toward concluding that work. We need to finish the drill on health care, Handel said.

But health-care is far from the only debate with potential pitfalls for Republican incumbents. Tax reform a way to achieve the rate cuts Handel promised voters is in limbo on Capitol Hill. And the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump tried to obstruct justice is a variable that keeps Republicans on edge.

MacArthur, who has worked closely with Trump on health care in recent months and confronted waves of voter anger at town-hall meetings, is now facing a challenge from Democrat Andy Kim, a former Obama administration national security staffer who launched his campaign this week.

The southern New Jersey district has been a hotbed of Democratic activity in the past six months, and voters heated opposition to MacArthur at public events has become fodder for cable news.

Shrugging off those clashes, MacArthur said the tide had not turned against him back home. Its a loud, angry minority that has an agenda that doesnt click with my district. I believe that, he said.

Even in the wake of Ossoffs loss, some Democrats said the fact he was competitive in Atlantas Republican suburbs could be a positive sign for next year, when they must win 24 GOP-held seats to claim a majority of seats in the House.

All of these special elections are a symbolic warning to Republicans, should things stay the way they are, Democratic strategist Robert Shrum said. Presidents always have trouble in midterm elections when theyve just been elected, and Trump has tremendous trouble with college-educated, suburban voters.

Viebeck and Tumulty reported from Washington.

Read more at PowerPost

See the original post:
Republicans are thrilled by their victory in Georgia, but the celebration may be brief - Washington Post

Surveying the Democratic wreckage after a disastrous 1952 campaign, Robert Taft, the typically taciturn Ohio Republican senator, made a bold prediction about the opposition. The Democratic Party, the onetime Senate majority leader asserted, will never win another national election until it solves the problem of the suburbs.

Taft wasnt exactly right, but he wasnt wrong either. The millions of voters fleeing overcrowded cities to seek the American dream would ultimately power Republicans to victory in six of the next nine presidential elections, and in the process, reshape the GOPs postwar image as the party of the suburbs.

Story Continued Below

But that Republican Party is now gone, and suburbia is no longer its trusted wingman. Although Donald Trump managed to win the suburbs narrowly in 2016, 49 percent to Hillary Clintons 45 percent, a little over half of suburbia voted against him, according to exit polls. This marks the third presidential election in a row in which the GOP nominee failed to crack 50 percent of the suburban vote.

Once the Republican Partys stronghold, suburban America threatens now to become its nemesis. A combination of demographic change and cultural dissonance is gradually eroding its ability to compete across much of suburbia, putting entire areas of the country out of the GOPs reach. Its a bigger crisis than the party acknowledges, a reckoning that threatens Trumps reelection and the next generation of Republican office-seekers.

Karen Handels Georgia special-election victory Tuesday enabled the GOP to kick the can down the road, but not for long. The same Atlanta suburbs that once produced Republicans like Newt Gingrich voted for Clinton in November. They followed up a few months later by nearly sending a 30-year-old, first-time Democratic candidate to Congress. Republicans may be gloating now, but its an ominous sign for the 2018 midterm elections, when control of the House is likely to hinge on roughly two or three dozen suburban districts currently held by the GOP.

Trump won the 2016 election, of course, boosted by the margins he ran up in smaller cities and rural areas. But he lost the populous close-in suburbs of Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., home to the precincts that first heralded suburbias arrival as a political powerhouse. That wasnt the real story, though. He was also defeated in other, later-blooming suburban giants, including Atlantas Cobb County and Southern Californias iconic Orange County, both onetime exporters of Sun Belt conservatism that occupy storied roles in the formation of the contemporary Republican Party.

Theres a reason Ronald Reagan once said Orange County was the place good Republicans go to diebefore 2016, it had last voted Democratic for president more than 80 years ago. The symbolism of Trumps defeat in one of the GOPs holy places was apt: This was the election where the full extent of the partys suburban rot was finally revealed.

Never mind the places he lost. He also barely squeaked by in traditional GOP stalwarts like Richmonds Chesterfield Countythe most populous in the state outside Northern Virginiaand Johnson County, the wealthy Kansas-side suburb of Kansas City. In many of the rock-ribbed Republican suburbs where Trump won easilyplaces like Waukesha County outside Milwaukee, and Hamilton County, on the outskirts of Indianapolishe trailed well behind Mitt Romneys 2012 pace.

Some of the erosion can be written off as a one-time reaction to Trump, a candidate uniquely ill-suited for the suburbs. His populist stylethe bombast, belligerence and frank disregard for credentialed elitessounded discordant notes in the more comfortable precincts, among the well-educated professionals who flocked to John Kasich and Marco Rubio during the GOP primary. So did Trumps caustic or tin-eared statements on gender, race and ethnicity on a suburban landscape that bears little resemblance to the original lily-white version.

But the truth is that Trump arrived in what was already the twilight of the GOPs suburban era.

In the decades following World War II, the suburbs formed the electoral backbone of the party, providing a reliable counterweight to big-city Democratic margins. The GOP was quick to grasp the new math in the 1950s, viewing the flight from the cities as an adrenaline shot for what was then a flat-lining party. Republicans celebrated the suburban way of lifeand its consumption ethoswhile Democrats, wedded to powerful big-city mayors and their machines, consistently derided it.

Have you ever lived in the suburbs? joked New York City Mayor Ed Koch in 1982. Its sterile. Its nothing. Its wasting your life.

For suburbia, the GOP functioned not just as a validator of its lifestyle but also as a guarantor. It was the party of growth, low taxes and law and order. Just as important, it served as a bulwark against racial integration and a vigorous critic of the big-city dysfunction that many suburban voters had fled. In return, the suburbs delivered a loyal and ever-expanding vote. By 1980, in a Frederick Jackson Turner-esque moment, the number of those living in the suburbs finally surpassed the number living in the central cities.

It wasnt until the early 1990s that Democrats finally made a full-fledged, unqualified play for the suburban vote. Bill Clinton explicitly targeted the tax-sensitive suburban middle class, speaking of personal responsibility, pushing for welfare reform and calling for the abandonment of Democrats free-spending policies of the past. The Northeastern and Midwestern suburbs were the first to go wobbly on the GOP, turned off by the culture wars waged by an increasingly Southern and socially conservative party.

Other subtle but important changes began to loosen the GOPs grip. As the suburbs aged, they began to experience more and more of the pathologies previously associated with the citiesamong them increased crime, poverty and crumbling infrastructure. At the same time, Americas great cities began to return to relative health.

Together, those developments brought some equilibrium to the relationship. The politics of the boogeyman-next-door began to lose its potency. City limitslike 8 Mile Road in Detroit or City Line Avenue in Philadelphiabegan to look less and less like political Maginot lines.

Perhaps the biggest change of all: The suburbs themselves grew far more diverse. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of racially diverse suburbs increased by 37 percent, growing at a faster clip than majority-white suburbs, according to one study.

The American Communities Project, which has developed a typology of counties, calls these kinds of wealthier and more diverse places urban suburbs. According to the ACP designation, there are 106 countieswith a combined population of 66.5 millionthat include the near-in suburbs of most major cities and display many big-city characteristics. In 2016, Trump lost 89 of them. Thats a dramatic departure from Ronald Reagans 1984 performance in those placeshe won 92 of those 106, including white-collar Oakland County outside Detroit; Long Islands Nassau County; Chicagolands DuPage County; and Riverside and San Bernardino counties in southern California. All of them are bigger than most major cities.

What happened in between Reagan and Trump? These suburbs gradually came into political alignment with their neighboring cities, moving the longtime antagonists toward something like a metropolitan alliance. At roughly the same time, the GOP largely gave up on competing among minorities and in the most densely populated areas.

The new GOP iteration differs in at least one important way from the one that dominated the suburbs in the Reagan years: It is now a conservative party that rejects metropolitan values, rather than a metropolitan party that embraces conservative values.

The threat to the party caused by the slow suburban bleed has gone all but unnoticed. Yet weve already gotten a glimpse of what the future could look like.

New York state stopped being competitive around the same time the populous New York City suburbs began going blue. The days when the GOP could carry Maryland ended when Baltimore County left the fold. Colorado and Virginia are likely to be the next dominoes to fall. Colorados Arapahoe and Jefferson counties, home to roughly 1.3 million residents, voted Republican in eight consecutive presidential elections through 2004. But since then, theyve voted Democratic in the past three. In November, Trump bottomed out at 39 percent of the Arapahoe vote.

Pennsylvania is another state where GOP presidential fortunes hit a wall once the Philadelphia suburbs drifted awaythat is, until last year. Trumps great electoral accomplishment was to figure out a workaround to the GOPs suburban erosion in places like Pennsylvania. He managed to overcome President Barack Obamas metropolitan Death Star with a patchwork alliance: forgotten and overlooked rural and small-town America, combined with smaller, whiter and less affluent suburbs. It wasnt enough to win the national popular vote, but it did provide enough of a margin to carry several key statesnamely Wisconsin and Pennsylvaniain which the GOP nominee had been shut out for decades.

Trumps coalition relied on several factors that wont be easy to replicate going forward, though. First among them: Trumps opponent. No matter the place designationurban, suburban or ruralClinton ran behind Obamas pace, according to exit polls. And in the suburbs, she was outperformed by Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore.

Trumps victory was also rooted in the strongest rural performance by a presidential nominee in decadeshe won 61 percent amid a huge turnout. Thats where the GOPs math problem comes in. To win reelection, Trump will need another gangbusters rural showing and to improve or at least maintain his 2016 levels in the suburbs, where roughly half the vote was cast last year. Theres little margin for error: Amped-up turnout in just three big cities aloneDetroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphiacould have flipped the 2016 election.

Yet there are few signs that hes improving his standing in suburbiaand some evidence its getting worse. The most recent POLITICO/Morning Consult poll puts the presidents approval ratings in the suburbs at just 42 percent, compared with 53 percent who disapprove. In the suburban Atlanta district that hosted Tuesdays special election, Trumps approval ratings were also underwater45 percent, according to one GOP poll.

One siren just sounded in a conservative suburban New York state legislative district that Trump carried by 23 points in November. In a stunning late May special election upset, the Democrat flipped the traditional script and won by 18in a seat where no Democratic Assembly candidate had been competitive in the past two decades.

Three years is a long time, but it wont be easy for Trump to win over his suburban detractors. Recent history suggests that once these big suburbs go blue, they dont come back. Suburban Baltimore County, which once produced Spiro Agnew, went Democratic for president in 1992 and never returned. The same holds true for the big three Philadelphia suburban countiesBucks, Delaware and Montgomeryall of which broke with habit to vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 and havent voted for a Republican nominee since.

The president need only gaze across the Potomac to get a close look at the problem. Northern Virginias suburban behemoth, Fairfax County, flipped in 2004by 2016, Trump could manage only an anemic 29 percent there. In nearby Loudoun and Prince William counties, the tipping point came in 2008.

No Republican has won the presidency in the postwar era without winning the suburbs. Trump will put that to the test in 2020. And with that, the GOPs suburban era may come full circle, with Republican leaders forced to offer some version of famed Chicago Democratic boss Jake Arveys 1952 post-election lament: The suburbs were murder.

Charlie Mahtesian is senior politics editor at Politico.

Read this article:
The GOP's Suburban Nightmare - POLITICO Magazine - POLITICO Magazine